Waffield  Libr 


THE   TEXT 


•|  USED    FOR    THE 


Revised  New  Testameni 


SHOWN  TO  BE 


UNAUTHORIZED. 


BS23  95 
.SI9 


LIBRARY  OF  THE  THEOLOGICAL   SEMINARY 

PRINCETON,    N.    J. 

From  the  Library  of 
Benjamin  Breckinridge  Warfield 


Division... -aD..^..^  *-)  O  !D 
Section...\..:^:.\.ji 


THE 


Wariieid  Library 

HNGLISH  REVISERS'  GREEK  TEXT 


SHOWN  TO  BE  UNAUTHORIZED  EXCEPT  BY 


Egyptian  Copies  Discarded  by  Greeks 


AND  TO  BE  OPPOSED  TO  THE 


HISTORIC  TEXT  OF  ALL  AGES  AP  CHURCHES 


G.    W.    SAMSON 


Former  President  of  Columbian    University,    Washington,  D.  C. 
NOW  OF  Bible  Workers'  College,  New  York 


FEB    "  1926 


CAMBRIDGE,     MASS. 

MOSES    KING,     PUBLISHER 

Harvard    S<juare 


Copyright,    1882, 
By    G.    W.    SAMSON 


OCCASION  AND  PROMISE  OF  THIS  REVIEW. 


The  British  revisers  of  the  English  Scrip- 
tures, and  their  pubHshers,  have  shown  a  natural 
interest  in  the  reception  given  to  their  work  on 
the  New  Testament  by  the  American  public. 
The  same  royal  patronage  of  James  I.  promoted 
Bible  revision  and  fostered  settlements  of  his 
Bible-loving  subjects  in  American  Colonies  ;  and 
nearly  three  centuries  have  witnessed  the  suc- 
cess of  both  these  noble  endeavors.  A  century 
ago,  March  22,  1775,  in  the  British  Parliament, 
Edmund  Burke  maintained  the  political  loyalty 
and  religious  integrity  of  the  colonists,  then 
3,000,000  in  number,  by  this  statement :  "  I 
have  been  told  by  an  eminent  book-seller,  that 
in  no  branch  of  his  business,  after  tracts  of  pop- 
ular devotion,  were  so  many  books  as  those  on 
law  exported  to  the  plantations.  The  colonists 
have  now  fallen  into  the  way  of  printing  them 
for  themselves.  I  hear  that  they  have  sold 
nearly  as  many  of  Blackstone's  Commentaries 


Ji  PREFACE. 

(issued  six  years  earlier)  in  America  as  in  En- 
gland." A  century  of  independent  growth  since 
Mr.  Burke  thus  spoke,  with  a  population  of  in- 
telligent readers  of  every  nationality,  who  com- 
pare notes  as  they  study  both  law-books  and 
Bible  translations,  has  but  intensified  the  truth 
thus  early  apparent  to  the  great  British  states- 
man. 

As  to  the  version  itself  criticism  has  been 
specially  impartial  and  appreciative.  As  was 
natural,  eminent  American  scholars  and  pub- 
lishers have  met  native  demands  for  editions  in 
which  the  sucrcrestions  of  the  American  revisers 

oo 

have  been  made  to  appear  in  the  text  ;  but  in 
this  no  rivalry  has  been  intended.  Criticism  of 
the  translation  has  been  ready  and  spontaneous. 
A  deeper  study,  that  of  the  text  translated,  has 
been  delayed  only  that  it  might  be  intelligent. 
When  the  sheets  of  this  review  were  ready  f(;r 
the  printer  the  exceptions  taken  to  the  altered 
text  by  the  Bishop  of  St.  Andrews  were  made 
public.  As  its  last  pages  are  coming  from  the 
stereotyper  the  article  in  the  London  Quarterly 
for  October,  1881,  has  met  the  writer's  eye. 
The  text  of  the  revisers,  published  by  Westcott 
and  Hort,  may  seem  to  be  severely  criticised;  but 
certainly  there  has  been  occasion  for  review. 

Certainly,  too,  a  lesson  is  to  be  learned  from 
Christ's  apostles  as  to  the  purport  of  His  maxim : 


PREFACE.  iii 

"  Be  wise  as  serpents  and  harmless  as  doves." 
The  oft-rebuked  Peter  commends  sincerely  the 
misinterpreted  epistles  of  his  ''  beloved  Brother 
Paul  " ;  and  declares  them  as  authoritative  as 
the  Old  Testament  Scriptures.  Earnest  Jude 
writes  to  his  fellow-disciples  :  "  Ye  should  con- 
tend earnestly  for  the  faith  once  delivered  to 
the  saints  "  ;  while,  on  the  other  hand,  gentle 
John,  in  his  last  epistle,  enjoins  as  to  his  juniors 
in  age  and  his  uninspired  fellow-laborers  in  a 
field  remote  from  his  :  "  We  ought  to  receive 
such  that  we  might  be  fellow-helpers  to  the 
truth."  The  differing  views  of  Christian  schol- 
ars and  workers  are  needed  to  furnish  both 
sides  of  counterpoising  convictions  essential  in 
the  quest  for  truth.  The  practical  wisdom  of 
the  Bishop  of  St.  Andrews,  in  his  responsible 
charge,  was  designed  to  offset  the  speculative 
judgment  of  the  scholar  Tregelles  formed  in  his 
cloistered  study.  The  review  not  only  has  an 
occasion,  but  also  -d.  promise. 


TABLE   OF  CONTENTS. 


of   second 


The  writer's  early  conviction, 

The  issue  taken  by  the  Revisers,     . 

The  leading  examiners  of  the  manuscripts. 

The  "koine  ekdosis  "  or  "  textus  receptus," 

The  uncial  or  stichometric  manuscripts. 

The   uncial   and    stichometric    manuscripts 

value, 

The  cursive  manuscripts  and  the  printed  editions. 
Translations  in  Oriental  and  European  languages 
The   Latin  versions  and  their  authority  in  the  Roman 

Catholic  Church,       .... 
The  Gothic  or  old  German  version. 
Rules  for  deciding  on  the  true  text  of  the  Greek  New 

Testament, 

Tregelles'  rules  for  determining  the  text, 
Six  passages  in  Matthew's  Gospel  omitted  by  the  un 
cials,  ........ 

Five  passages  omitted  in  Mark's  and  Luke's  histories. 
The  three  passages  omitted  from  John's  writings, 
The  countless  varijMKons  of  the  three  leading  uncials. 
Inequalities   and  imperfections    in   the   work   of  Tre- 
gelles  


5 
9 

13 
18 

23 

33 
38 
41 

47 

52 

53 
59 

63 
70 

74 
79 


4  TABLE  OF  CONTENTS. 

Grounds   for   review   of   the    revisers'    changes    in    the 

Greek  Text, 88 

General  reasons  for  undue  trust  in  the  uncial  manu- 
scripts,      .........     93 

Unscientific  criticism  the  main  source  of  error  as  to  the 

Egyptian  uncials,      ....  .         .   io2 

Scientific  defence  of  faith  in  the  truths  of  natural  re- 
ligion,       .........   io6 

Scientific  defense  of  faith  in  the  Christian  revelation,     .   no 

Objections  to  the  fact  of  Inspiration,       .         .         .         .   uS 

The  manner  of  the  fact  of   Inspiration    illustrated  by 

analogy,    .........   I20 

I'he  common  text  of  the  Greek  New  Testament  sus- 
tained,      .........   126 

Prospective  confirmation  of  the  integrity  of  the  New 

Testament  Greek'  Text, 129 


New  Testament  Greek  Text. 


THE   WRITER'S   EARLY   CONVICTION. 

The  early  reading  of  Jahn's  "  Introduction  to 
the  Old  Testament "  and  of  Hug's  "  Introduction 
to  the  New  Testament,"  both  biblical  studies  of 
old  Catholics,  fixed  the  conviction  that  1''  j  in- 
tegrity of  the  original  inspired  text  of  tlv.  Old 
and  New  Testaments  would  alike,  each  *'  '  ^  clue 
time,"  be  satisfactorily  established.  Prof.  Irhn, 
of  the  University  of  Vienna,  Austria,  vrote 
when  German  Rationalism,  opposed  al'kj  by 
Evangelical  Protestants  like  Tholuck  iinu  by 
conscientious  and  comprehensive  Roman  Catlio- 
lic  scholars,  had  commenced  the  effort  t(j  under- 
mine the  divine  inspiration  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment by  the  search  for  imperfections,  first  in  its 
statements,  and  then  in  its  text;  which  un- 
founded criticisms  Jahn  met  by  most  exhaustive 
historical  and  critical  research.  The  translation 
of  this  voluminous  work  by  Dr.  Turner  and  Rev. 
Mr.  Whittingham,  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal 
Seminary  in  New  York,  and  its  publication  in 


6  NEW  TESTAMENT  GREEK  TEXT. 

1827,  marked  an  era  in  American  biblical  scholar- 
ship. Hug,  writing,  like  Jahn,  when  the  spirit 
of  inquiry,  which  led  to  the  French  Revolution, 
awakened  all  the  true  guardians  of  the  Christian 
faith  to  meet  by  newly-stated  evidence  the  as- 
saults on  the  genuineness  and  authenticity  of 
the  New  Testament  records,  traces  back  to  the 
apostles'  time  the  proofs  of  the  integrity  of  the 
"  koine  ekdosis  "  of  the  Greek  Church,  the  "  tex- 
tus  receptus "  of  the  Latin  Church,  and  the 
"  common  text  "  of  German  and  English  trans- 
lators. He  quotes  Origen's  citing  of  the  fact, 
that  the  integrity  of  the  Hebrew  text  of  the 
Old  Testament  was,  in  the  second  century,  so 
established  as  to  forbid  doubt  alike  among 
Jews,  Christians  and  the  opposers  of  the  com- 
mon faith  ;  while  also,  alluding  to  errors  of 
copyists,  akin  to  typographical  errors  of  our 
day,  which  were  magnified  by  opposers,  Origen 
was  confident  that  the  Greek  text  of  the  New 
Testament  was  guarded  by  both  divine  and 
human  sanctity  as  the  ''  new  covenant "  made 
by  God  with  man.  Hug  had  before  him  all  the 
important  ancient  manuscripts  called  "  uncials," 
now  cited,  except  that  obtained  in  1859  ^^  Mount 
Sinai  by  Tischendorff;  and  he  subjected  these 
manuscripts  to  the  most  thorough  and  impartial 
personal  examination.  Of  his  work  Gesenius 
said,  and  Stuart  repeated  the  statement :  "'  He 


EARL  V  IMPRESSIONS  CONFIRMED.  y 

excels  all  his  predecessors  in  deep  and  funda- 
mental investigations."  Perhaps  the  word  "  suc- 
cessors "  might  be  added. 

In  the  years  1847-8  these  early  convictions 
were  personally  confirmed.  In  the  Karaite 
synagogue  of  Cairo,  Egypt,  whose  succession 
dates  back  to  the  age  of  Alexander,  who,  B.C. 
332,  invited  Jews  to  settle,  for  commercial 
reasons,  in  Egypt,  while  the  patriarch  read  from 
one  of  the  oldest  manuscripts  preserved  among 
the  Jews  since  Christ's  day,  the  boys  were  seen 
to  follow  the  patriarch  with  small,  bound  copies, 
prepared  from  manuscripts  kept  among  Euro- 
pean Christians,  and  published  by  the  British 
and  Foreign  Bible  Society  at  London.  Im- 
mediately the  conviction  was  formed  that  the 
agreement  between  these  copies  demonstrated 
the  perfect  integrity  of  the  Hebrew  text ;  a  con- 
viction confirmed,  when  subsequently  a  decree 
of  the  head  patriarch  of  the  Jews  at  Salonica, 
the  ancient  Thessasolica,  Greece,  commended 
these  copies  of  the  British  and  Foreign  Bible 
Society's  issue  as  strictly  conformed  to  the 
manuscripts  preserved  among  the  Jews.  The 
possibility  of  a  like  demonstrative  proof  as  to 
the  manuscripts  of  the  New  Testament  grew 
up  between  Alexandria,  Egypt,  and  Athens, 
Greece.  In  the  convent  at  Mount  Sinai  there 
was  exhibited  to  a  large  and  wealthy  English 


8  NEW  TESTAMENT  GREEK  TEXT. 

party  the  manuscript  coveted  by  Tischendorff  in 
1844;  whose  first-glance  impression  was,  in  1866, 
confirmed  by  scrutiny  of  the  fac-simile,  sent  by 
the  Emperor  of  Russia  to  the  U.  S.  Govern- 
ment. On  the  Nile  several  convents  visited  be- 
tween Alexandria  and  Syene  were  known  to 
have  libraries  unexplored,  where  might  yet  be 
found  not  only  other  Egyptian  uncial  copies, 
but  also  the  originals  from  which  those  oft-cor- 
rected copies  received  their  numerous  insertions. 
That  these  originals,  from  which  all  the  im- 
portant ancient  manuscripts  were  corrected, 
would  prove  to  be  the  "  common  text,"  was  veri- 
fied in  the  University  of  Athens  ;  when  a  keenly 
critical  native  Greek  professor,  with  a  brow  per- 
fectly Platonic,  was  listened  to  as  he  comment- 
ed on  the  original  text ;  which  text  was  pre- 
cisely that  followed  by  the  Protestant  translators 
of  England  and  Germany  at  the  era  of  the 
Reformation ;  which  text,  again,  is  found  to 
have  been  followed  in  the  main  by  the  earlier 
and  later  Oriental  versions  from  the  Syriac,  of 
the  second  century,  to  the  Arabic,  of  the  eighth 
century ;  and  which  text,  yet  again,  received 
by  the  Roman  Church  at  the  same  era,  was  es- 
tablished in  the  Latin  Vulgate  with  few  excep- 
tions. Every  successive  review,  following  up 
the  researches  of  Tregelles  and  Tischendorff, 
has    added    new   confirmation    to    early-formed 


JiEVISERS'  POSITION  AS  TO  TEXT.  g 

convictions.  The  appearance  of  the  work  of 
the  Canterbury  revisers,  in  which,  for  the  first 
time  in  the  history  of  the  Christian  Church,  the 
uncial  manuscripts,  made  in  Egypt  by  copyists, 
many  of  whom  were  ignorant  of  Greek,  have 
been  followed  as  supreme  authority  in  a  version 
of  the  New  Testament — this  crisis  certainly 
calls  for  a  review  of  the  grounds  on  which  de- 
cision as  to  the  integrity  of  the  inspired  original 
text  must  be  made  to  rest. 


THE   ISSUE   TAKEN   BY   THE   REVISERS. 

When  the  revision  of  the  received  version  of 
the  English  Scriptures  was  proposed  in  England 
by  the  Canterbury  Convocation,  when  a  minority 
representation  of  scholars  outside  of  the  Estab- 
lished Church  of  England  was  admitted  to  its 
counsels,  and  when  an  American  representation 
was  invited  to  make  suggestions,  though  with- 
out any  voice  in  the  final  decision,  few,  if  any, 
outside  of  the  original  and  controlling  majority 
had  the  conception  that  anything  more  than  a 
revision  of  the  translation  of  the  text  generally 
received  in  all  branches  of  the  Christian  Church, 
Greek  and  Oriental,  Catholic  and  Protestant, 
was  proposed.  The  fact  is  now  made  public  that 
some,  in  the  company  of  revisers  selected  from 


lO         NEW  TESTAMENT  GREEK  TEXT. 

the  English  Church  itself,  were,  from  the  first, 
as  much  surprised  as  the  Christian  world  at 
large  have  been  ;  for  the  Bishop  of  St.  Andrews, 
in  his  late  charge  to  his  synod,  states,  as  to  his 
own  impressions  of  the  revisers'  work  during  its 
progress :  ''  The  more  I  saw  of  the  work,  the 
more  it  appeared  to  me  that  we  were  going 
beyond  the  purpose  for  which,  as  I  understood 
it,  we  have  been  appointed."  Going  further, 
and  citing  omissions  like  that  of  the  doxology 
in  the  Lord's  Prayer,  whose  form  is  used  in  all 
branches  of  the  Christian  Church,  except  the 
Roman,  as  a  part  of  Christ's  words,  the  Bishop 
of  St.  Andrews  declares:  ''I  was  unable  to 
discover  ....  any  actual  consensus  of  scholars 
to  demand  the  changes  that  have  been  made." 
To  careful  students  of  the  history  of  the  New 
Testament  the  preface  of  the  revisers  at  once 
hinted  that  Xh.^  first  object  was  a  revision  of  the 
received  Greek  text  rather  than  of  the  received 
English  translation.  The  casual  first  glance 
over  the  entire  work  showed  that  that  revision 
was  confined  almost  exclusively  to  omissions 
from  the  received  Greek  text ;  which  omissions 
were  justified  only  by  a  class  of  manuscripts 
ancient,  indeed,  and  valuable  as  relics,  but  hav- 
ing the  following  peculiarities,  as  every  testimony 
of  their  admirers,  as  well  as  of  their  original 
possessors,  shows. 


CHARACTER  OF  STICHOMETRIC  MSS.         1 1 

The  small  collection  of  ancient  manuscripts 
of  the  New  Testament  followed,  as  authorita- 
tive, in  the  new  English  revision,  have,  as  the 
best  authorities  state,  these  characteristics.  They 
were  transcribed  by  Egyptian  copyists,  most  of 
whom  were  ignorant  of  Greek,  in  the  age  just 
after  Constantine,  and  thence  onward  for  three 
centuries  ;  a  period  when  the  demand  for  copies 
was  pressing.  They  were  modeled  strictly  after 
Hebrew  rather  than  Greek  manuscripts;  having 
these  two  peculiarities.  They  are  in  square 
capitals,  called  "  uncial,"  without  accents,  punc- 
tuation marks,  or  even  spaces  between  the 
words.  Again,  they  are  arranged  in  narrow 
columns,  with  the  same  number  of  words  in 
each  line,  called  "  stichometric,"  or  line-measured ; 
while,  unlike  the  Hebrew,  which,  by  an  expan- 
sion of  the  width  of  certain  letters,  made  the 
e?tds  of  the  lines  to  be  parallel  with  the  line  of 
their  commencement,  these  lines  have  the  ap- 
pearance of  English  blank  verse  ;  the  columns 
being  plumb  on  the  left  side,  but  irregular  on 
the  right.  Since  these  peculiarities  are  unlike 
the  Greek  of  their  day,  and  especially  Oriental, 
they  deserve  careful  notice.  Again,  when  in 
the  hands  of  Greek  scholars  for  several  centuries 
before  they  came  to  the  libraries  of  Italy, 
Germany,  France,  and  England,  they  were  cor- 
rected as  imperfect  by  the  insertion  of  numerous 


12  NEW  TESTAMENT  GREEK  TEXT. 

omitted  lines ;  these  corrections  being  found  in 
all  the  principal  manuscripts ;  while  Tischen- 
dorff  states  that  the  Sinaitic  was  thus  corrected 
at  ten  different  eras  in  different  centuries.  Yet, 
again,  while  nearly  all  these  manuscripts'^are  frag- 
mentary, or  partial,  only  three  containing  origi- 
nally all  the  books  of  the  New  Testament,  two 
of  these,  by  the  portions  lost,  show  plainly  that 
they  were  esteemed  of  little  value  by  their 
Greek  possessors.  Yet,  again,  the  only  two 
which  retain  the  concluding  books  of  the  New 
Testament,  so  as  to  allow  additions,  include, 
added  to  the  inspired  records,  writings  of  the 
early  Christian  fathers,  showing  that  the  copy- 
ists did  not  discriminate  between  the  inspired 
and  uninspired  writings ;  a  fact  which  Tischen- 
dorff,  apparently  unconscious  of  the  necessary 
inference  which  must  be  drawn  from  his  state- 
ment, cites  as  proof  of  the  particular  era  when 
his  manuscript  had  its  origin. 

That  the  true  relation  of  the  text  of  these 
uncials  to  the  Greek  "  koine  ekdosis,"  or  '*  com- 
mon text,"  may  be  seen,  the  following  order  of 
survey  seems  to  be  required :  first,  a  mention  of 
the  most  thorough  examiners  of  the  manuscripts 
who  have  recorded  matured  convictions,  especi- 
ally as  to  their  numerous  omissions  ;  second,  a 
notice  of  the  "  common  text,"  and  the  history 
of  the  earlier  and  later  Greek  manuscripts,  of 


LEADING  EXAMINERS  OF  MANUSCRIPTS.    13 

versions  Oriental  and  European  made  from  the 
"common  text"  rather  than  the  Egyptian  un- 
cials ;  and,  lastly,  the  contrasted  weight  allowed 
to  the  uncials  by  the  Canterbury  revisers  and  the 
two  scholars  whose  new  view  controlled  their 
judgment. 


THE   LEADING  EXAMINERS   OF  THE 
MANUSCRIPTS. 

The  impression  has  been  recently  encouraged 
that  the  manuscripts  at  issue  were  unknown  to, 
or  were  unexamined  by,  philological  students 
until  within  the  last  forty  years.  On  the  con- 
trary, these  facts  are  historically  sustained  :  first, 
that  all  of  them  were  known  for  centuries  to 
Greek  scholars,  by  whom  they  were  examined 
and  corrected ;  second,  that  Roman  Catholic 
and  Protestant  translators  had  before  them 
most  of  these  manuscripts,  as  v/ell  as  the  "  com- 
mon "  Greek  text,  at  the  era  of  the  Reforma- 
tion ;  third,  that  of  the  uncial  manuscripts  most 
relied  on  hy  the  present  revisers,  the  Vatican 
was  used  by  the  Roman  revisers  of  the  Greek 
text  ;  the  Alexandrine,  sent  to  Charles  I.,  was 
thoroughly  examined  by  Poole,  under  Charles 
II. ;  while  it  is  the  Sinaitic,  the  one  most  mani- 
festly erroneous  in  its  omissions,  and  the  most 
corrected  by  Greek  scholars,  which  has  led  to 


f4  NEW  TESTAMENT  GREEK  TEXT. 

the  newly  controlling  impression    as    to    their 
authoritative  value. 

The  four  examiners,  whose  thorough  explora- 
tions, so  harmonious  in  their  record  as  to  the 
character  of  the  manuscripts,  entitles  their 
work  to  special  consideration,  are  Poole,  Hug, 
Tregelles,  and  Tischendorff.  Poole  was  an 
eminent  Presbyterian  scholar,  a  leader  in 
thought  during  the  Commonwealth,  whose 
conscientious  convictions  would  not  allow  him 
to  conform  to  the  ecclesiastical  polity  and  the  rit- 
ualistic service  of  the  English  Church  as  ordered 
and  enforced  under  Charles  II.  His  recognized 
eminence  and  his  civil  loyalty,  however,  though 
necessarily  depriving  him  of  his  State  support 
and  of  his  parish,  led  Charles  to  favor  and  even 
to  court  his  services.  Devoting  himself  to  the 
life-work  of  bringing  together  in  his  "  Synopsis 
Criticorum  "  all  known  authorities  as  to  both 
the  text  and  the  interpretation  of  the  text  of 
the  Old  and  New  Testaments,  collating  with 
care  the  accordant  Catholic  and  Protestant 
revisers  of  the  Greek  text,  and  associated  with 
Walton  in  his  Polyglot  Bible,  and  with  Castell 
in  his  Heptaglott  Lexicon,  Poole's  recorded 
researches  on  disputed  portions  of  the  text  bear 
favorable  comparison  with  even  the  recent 
labors  of  Tregelles,  while  his  decisions  are  in 
accord  with  the  whole  Christian  world.     In  his 


HUG,   THE  COMPREHENSIVE  CRITIC. 


15 


loyal  dedication  to  Charles  II.  he  expresses  in- 
debtedness to  his  sovereign  for  having  put  at 
his  special  disposal  the  valuable  manuscripts 
(Chartas)  within  the  reach  of  Government 
authorities.  On  the  doxology  of  the  Lord's 
Prayer,  Matt.  vi.  13,  and  on  the  recognition  of 
the  Trinity,  i  John  v.  7,  he  quotes  the  early 
fathers  far  more  fully  than  even  Tregelles  ;  his 
citations  of  the  versions  are  more  complete ; 
and  his  allusions  to  the  ''  Britannic  "  and  to  the 
"  Parisian  Codices  "  show  clearly  that  the  Alex- 
andrine, as  well  as  other  uncial  manuscripts, 
had  been  his  study. 

The  most  comprehensive  and  specially  im- 
partial examiner  of  the  uncial  manuscripts  was 
Hug,  a  German  Catholic  of  the  early  part  of 
the  present  century ;  who  devotes  more  than 
250  large  octavo  pages  to  a  complete  statement 
concerning  the  Greek  text  as  established  by 
manuscripts,  by  the  versions,  and  by  the  early 
Christian  writers.  He  lived  and  wrote  when 
the  truly  Catholic  spirit  so  triumphed  that  the 
early  Roman  Catholic  versions  made  at  the  era 
of  the  Reformation  were  sustained  and  copied. 
As  an  instance  of  this  fact,  a  German  version  of 
the  New  Testament,  published  at  Carlsruhe  in 
181 5,  read  daily  by  children  and  youth  in  the 
public  schools  in  Catholic  Germany,  makes  the 
following  statement  in  a  note  on  Matt.  xvi.  18: 


1 6  .VEIV  TESTAMENT  GREEK  TEXT. 

that  Christ  did  not  refer  to  Peter  the  man,  but 
to  the  sentiment  he  uttered ;  as  the  word 
*'petra,"in  the  feminine,  ahke  in  the  original 
Greek  and  in  the  Latin  Vulgate,  clearly  indi- 
cates. Of  Hug's  thorough  examination  Gesenius 
wrote :  "  He  excels  all  his  predecessors  in  deep 
and  profound  investigations."  Of  his  impartial 
spirit,  Stuart,  who  supervised  the  translation  of 
his  "  Introduction  to  the  New  Testament,"  and 
its  issue  from  the  Andover  press,  in  1836,  makes 
this  statement:  "Hug  is  a  Roman  Catholic 
with  a  kind  of  Protestant  heart."  Hug's  state- 
ments as  to  the  uncial  manuscripts,  all  of  which 
of  any  importance,  except  the  Sinaitic  manu- 
script, were  subjected  to  a  thorough  examina- 
tion, are  the  fullest  accessible  to  modern 
students. 

The  two  authorities  who  guided  the  Canter- 
bury revisers  are  Tregelles  and  Tischendorff. 
The  former  has  given  his  life  to  the  collation  of 
Greek  manuscripts,  of  versions  and  of  quota- 
tions from  the  New  Testament  made  by  the 
early  Christians  down  to  Eusebius,  the  historian 
of  Constantine's  age.  Tregelles  began  his 
labors  in  revision  and  collation  of  ancient 
manuscripts  in  1844.  The  first  issue  of  his 
work  was  in  parts,  Matthew  and  Mark  appear- 
ing in  1857,  Luke  and  John  in  i860,  then  the 
Acts  and  Catholic  Epistles,  in  r'69  Paul's  Epis- 


TREGELLES  AND   TISCHENDORFF.  ly 

ties,  and  last  the  Apocalypse.  As  his  work  was 
continually  progressive,  as  Tischendorff's  manu- 
scripts did  not  enter  into  his  first  collation,  and 
as  a  comprehensive  collation  of  ail  authorities 
could  not  be  made  in  any  one  man's  lifetime,  the 
latest  edition  in  his  declining  health  was  made 
by  another  hand.  Under  the  auspices,  and  for 
the  benefit  of  his  widow,  the  final  work,  in  one 
large  volume,  appeared  in  1872.  No  mind  that  has 
any  esteem  for  honest  and  earnest  thought  and 
research  can  fail  to  appreciate  the  work  to 
which  Tregelles  gave  his  years  ;  and  no  heart, 
touched  by  Divine  grace,  can  fail  to  be  moved 
by  the  pious  devotion  with  which  he  made  his 
last  dedication  of  his  life-work.  But,  no  one 
who  thoroughly  examines  the  character  and  his- 
tory of  the  uncial  manuscripts,  to  whose  author- 
ity Tregelles  gave  implicit  confidence,  can  fail 
to  recall  many  another  noble  mind  liable  to  be 
misled. 

Tischendorff,  the  contemporary  of  Tregelles, 
from  the  first  an  explorer  and  collector,  having 
first  seen  in  1844,  and  finally  in  1859  having 
obtained  the  Sinaitic  manuscript,  has  devoted 
his  later  years  to  a  collation  of  varied  manu- 
scripts, including  fragments  gathered  by  himself. 
While  admired  by  Tregelles  for  his  enthusiasm 
as  a  collator,  Tischendorff's  judgment  as  to  the 
comparative  value  of  his  personal  contributions 


1 8  NEW  TESTAMENT  GREEK  TEXT, 

was  not  shared  either  by  Tregelles  or  by  other 
collators.  The  work  of  Tischendorff  of  chief 
value  in  tracing  the  history  of  the  text  adopted 
by  the  Canterbury  revisers,  is  his  edition  of 
"The  Authorized  English  Version,"  issued  from 
the  famed  Tauchnitz  press  at  Leipzig  in  1869; 
in  which  the  numberless  omissions  from  the 
"common"  Greek  text,  followed  by  King 
James'  translators,  which  are  found  in  the 
Alexandrine,  Vatican,  and  Sinaitic  manuscripts, 
are  brought  together  and  are  presented  in 
foot-notes. 


THE   "  KOINE   EKDOSIS  "    OR   "  TEXTUS 
RECEPTUS." 

It  has  become  an  unwarranted  custom  to 
allude  to  the  text  used  by  both  Catholic  and 
Protestant  translators  at  the  era  of  the  Refor- 
mation, styled  in  Latin  the  "  textus  receptus,"  as 
if  it  were  made  up  at  that  time  ;  whereas  it  was 
then  foimd  as  the  universally  received  text  of 
the  Roman,  the  Oriental,  and  especially  of  the 
Greek  Church,  which  Church  still  uses  the 
original  Greek  as  their  vernacular.  The  history 
of  this  text,  traced  by  Hug  at  length,  may 
be  briefly  summarized. 

During  the  life  of  Christ's  apostles,  "  Paul's 
epistles,"  designed  as  truly  for  all  the  churches 


COPIES  AS  RELIABLE  AS  ORIGINALS.        iq 

as  were  Peter's  "  Epistles  General," — the  epistles 
of  Paul  were  so  numerously  copied,  so  exten- 
sively distributed,  so  generally  read,  and  so 
independently  interpreted,  that  Peter  declares 
(2  Peter  iii.  15,  16)  they  were  like  the  Scriptures 
of  the  Old  Testament,  already  ;;2Z>interpreted. 
The  vital  point  as  to  the  preservation,  in  copies^ 
of  the  original  text  of  the  New  Testament  is 
thus  established.  A  recognized  copy  of  an  in- 
spired epistle  had,  in  the  writer's  own  day,  the 
accuracy,  and  hence  the  authority  of  the  orig- 
inal manuscripts;  a  principle  which  deserves 
special  consideration.  No  men  more  fully  than 
Tregelles  and  Tischendorff,  in  common  with  all 
thorough  students  of  historic  records,  declare: 
that  "  no  documents  have  been  guarded  with 
such  care  as  the  Old  Testament  Scriptures,  or 
have  been  preserved  with  more  accuracy  than 
the  New  Testament  records."  Christ  alludes 
to  the  care  with  which  the  Hebrews  copied  the 
manuscripts  of  the  Old  Testament  when  he 
said:  ''Till  heaven  and  earth  pass,  one  jot  or 
one  tittle  shall  in  no  wise  pass  from  the  law  till 
all  be  fulfilled."  In  this  a  double  safeG["uard  is 
indicated  :  first,  the  care  of  men,  in  the  past  so 
unparalleled,  would  prevent  the  omission  of 
the  minute  letter  "  yod,"  or  even  of  the  ''  little 
curve "  which  distinguishes  one  letter  from 
another,  as,  for  example,  the  Hebrew  d  from  r ; 


20  AVi/r  TES'J-AMEX r  GREEK  TEXT. 

second,  there  is  promised  for  the  future  a  Divine 
watch-care,  aHke  applicable  to  the  revelation 
then  given,  and  to  that  which  through  His 
apostles  He  would  subsequently  give.  The 
Apostle  Paul,  referring  to  a  truth  familiar  to 
human  legislators,  writes  as  to  the  new  covenant, 
given  before  the  old  covenant,  though  fully  re- 
vealed only  in  the  New  Testament :  "  Though  it 
be  but  a  man's  covenant,  yet  if  it  be  confirmed  no 
man  disannuUeth  or  addeth  thereto."  Bible 
scholars,  who  are  at  the  same  time  jurists,  such 
as  Grotius  and  Greenleaf,  observe  that  while 
poems  like  those  of  Homer  and  Virgil,  orations 
like  those  of  Demosthenes  and  Cicero,  histories 
like  those  of  Herodotus  and  Tacitus,  come 
down  from  past  ages  wonderfully  preserved, 
law  codes  still  authoritative,  like  that  of  Jus- 
tinian, never  have  the  genuineness  of  their 
oft-copied  records  brought  into  question.  What 
Englishman  or  American,  however  much  inter- 
pretatiofis  may  differ,  ever  dreams  that  the 
"  textus  receptus  "  of  ''  Magna  Charta,"  or  of 
the  American  Constitution,  will  in  any  future 
day,  any  more  than  in  the  past  or  present,  be 
called  in  question  simply  because  the  original 
documents  may  be  lost,  and  only  copies 
remain  ! 

Hug  has  rendered  special  service  in  tracing 
the  history  of  the  ''  koine  ekdosis  "   or  "  com- 


HUG  ON  THE  ''KOINE  EKDOSIS.*'  2 1 

mon  edition "  (vulgaris  editio)  in  the  early 
centuries  back  to  the  apostles'  age.  Stating 
the  liabilities  to  error  in  copying,  which  the 
works  of  Homer  illustrated,  observing  that  the 
same  liability  applied  to  the  Greek  translation 
of  the  Old  Testament,  which  was  not  regarded 
as  sacred.  Hug  is  assured  that  till  the  third 
century,  when  the  first  ''  recensions "  were 
made,  the  "  koine  ekdosis "  or  "  common  edi- 
tion "  was  recognized  and  authoritative.  His 
comparison  of  the  Egyptian  and  Palestine 
copies  at  this  period  deserves  special  considera- 
tion, since  the  preference  given  to  the  former  is 
only  expressed  when  the  Latin  Vulgate  demands 
his  acquiescence.  At  that  era,  because  of  de- 
signed misinterpretations  by  men  who,  like 
Marcion,  specially  theorized  as  to  the  Divine 
nature  of  Jesus  as  *'  the  Son  of  God,"  and  also 
by  carelessness  in  inexperienced  copyists,  differ- 
ent readings  were  quoted  ;  while,  nevertheless, 
as  these  were  citations  of  the  supposed  sense 
rather  than  of  the  words  of  the  text,  even 
Marcion  is  defended  from  unjust  aspersion  by 
Hug.  The  contrast  between  the  New  Testa- 
ment Greek  and  the  Old  Testament  Greek 
translation,  is  noted  by  Origen  thus  :  "  In  the 
copies  of  the  Old  Testament,  indeed,  with  the 
help  of  God,  we  have  remedied  this  confusion," 
and  in  apparent  confidence  in  a  like  Divine  aid 


22  NEW  TESTAMENT  GREEK  TEXT. 

he  attempted  his  "  recension  "  or  revision  of  the 
text.  As  to  the  centre  where  copies  were 
chiefly  made,  Hug  says:  "Alexandria  had  long 
supplied  the  West  with  Greek  copies  of  all 
learned  works,  and  the  West  obtained  from  the 
same  source  manuscripts  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment," and  he  cites  Suetonius  (in  Domit.  c.  20) 
in  confirmation.  The  "  recensions,"  to  which 
the  age  of  Origen  gave  rise,  like  those  of  the 
age  of  the  Reformation,  indicate,  as  Hug  shows 
by  an  extended  collation,  that  a  theological 
bias,  especially  as  to  Christ's  Divinity,  as  rife 
and  as  decided  as  that  of  our  day,  controlled 
the  revisers ;  those  of  Hesychius  and  Lucian 
especially,  revealing  that  a  prejudice  because  of 
a  prejudgment  influenced  the  revisers  in  com- 
paring copies.  This  difficulty  was  afterward 
aggravated  by  the  political  dissensions  of  the 
Eastern  and  Western  Empire,  which  culminated 
when  Constantine  fixed  the  seat  of  Empire  at 
Constantinople. 

The  act  of  Constantine,  recorded  by  Euse- 
bius,  in  causing  a  large  number  of  copies  of  the 
Greek  Scriptures  to  be  made  by  authorized 
writers,  and  to  be  distributed  throughout  the 
Empire,  but  especially  in  the  East,  doubtless 
fixed  the  *'  koine  ekdosis  "  as  it  now  maintains 
in  Greece  and  in  every  part  of  the  Oriental 
Church.      It  was  this  text,    still  ruling  undis- 


UNCIAL  OR  STICHOMETRIC  MANUSCRIPTS.    23 

puted  in  the  Oriental  Church,  that  was  adopted 
in  the  Protestant,  and  substantially  in  the 
Roman  Catholic,  versions  made  at  the  Refor- 
mation. It  is  this  to  which  Tregelles  refers 
occasionally,  as  on  i  John  v.  7,  as  the  "codices 
Graeci  hodierni,"  or  the  Greek  codes  of  to-day. 
It  should  be  distinctly  observed  that  this  text 
of  the  ages,  preserved  by  the  Greeks  themselves, 
is  like  Justinian's  "Institutes"  in  all  Europe, 
and  like  Blackstone  in  England  and  America. 
It  is  the  "  common  law  text  " ;  and  therefore 
on  every  critic,  who  in  Germany,  England,  or 
America  disputes  its  authority,  the  "  burden  of 
proof"  rests. 


THE   UNCIAL  OR  STICHOMETRIC  MANUSCRIPTS. 

The  classification  of  manuscripts  thus  desig- 
nated by  Tregelles  is  minutely  and  discrimina- 
tively  made  in  Hug.  Tregelles,  referring  to  the 
square  capital  letters  used  in  the  ancient  Greek 
manuscripts,  calls  them  "  uncials,"  dividing 
them  into  two  classes  :  first,  "  the  most  ancient," 
or  those  " prior  to  the  seventh  century";  and 
second,  "  later  uncial  manuscripts  of  special 
importance."  Hug,  referring  rather  to  the 
"line-measare,"  called  "  stichometric  "  in  the 
Greek,  divides  them  into  "  stichometric "  and 
"  non-stichometric."      Though  the  principle  of 


24  NEW  TESTAMENT  GREEK  TEXT. 

classification  is  distinct,  the  general  result  of 
these  divisions  is  substantially  the  same.  Hug's 
description  of  the  two  leading  manuscripts 
which  rule  the  decisions  of  Tregelles  as  to  the 
text,  is  specially  minute.  Hug  introduces  his 
description  of  these  two,  the  Vatican  and 
Alexandrine,  by  stating  that  their  designation 
of  priority,  as  indicated  by  A  for  the  Alexan- 
drine, B  for  the  Vatican,  and  C  for  the  Parisian, 
is  "  probably  more  from  accident  than  anything 
else";  though  to  men  of  less  secluded  habits  it 
is  apparent  that  England's  leadership  in  bibli- 
cal translation,  like  her  leadership  in  navigation, 
has  allowed  her  classification  of  these  manu- 
scripts, as  it  has  allowed  her  fixing  of  Greenwich 
as  the  unit  of  longitude.  Hug,  as  a  Catholic 
scholar,  placed  the  Vatican  manuscript  first  in 
his  investigation.  The  Vatican  is  on  fine 
parchment ;  the  letters  are  square  and  perfectly 
uniform,  the  initials  included ;  the  letters 
are  equidistant,  with  no  separation  between 
the  words ;  there  are  no  punctuation-marks ; 
the  lines,  as  in  blank  verse,  are  irregular  in  the 
line  of  their  ending,  showing  that  the  copyist 
followed  the  Hebrew,  not  the  Greek  idea;  the 
columns  are  narrow  and  the  lines  short,  and 
there  are  six  columns  on  each  sheet  of  parch- 
ment, or  three  lines  when  cut  into  two,  the 
sheets  being  necessarily  limited  to   the  size  of 


THE  VATICAN  MANUSCRIPT.  25 

the  skin.  Among  the  minor  corrections,  in- 
serted at  later  p^eriods  by  Greek  scholars,  are 
these :  the  writing  of  large  initials  where  Greek 
taste  required ;  punctuation-marks  afterward 
introduced,  but  only  seldom ;  Greek  accents 
sometimes,  but  not  always,  added  ;  besides  nu- 
merous other  indications,  detailed  by  Hug, 
which  prove  that  the  manuscript  was  orig- 
inally "written  by  an  Egyptian  calligraphist," 
whose  work  required  correction.  Hug  had  the 
personal  privilege  of  a  thorough  study  of  this 
manuscript.  Tregelles  makes  this  statement  as 
to  his  own  work  :  "  This  manuscript,  which  is  of 
the  greatest  importance,  is  cited  from  the  col- 
lations of  others,  in  consequence  of  permission 
having  been  refused  to  use  the  manuscript  it- 
self." This  statement  occurs  in  his  first  issue, 
made  in  1857;  subsequent  to  which  era  it  was 
open  to  Protestant  scholars.  Tregelles  regards 
the  Vatican  as  a  manuscript  of  the  fourth  cent- 
ury, and  the  Alexandrine  of  the  fifth  ;  which, 
according  to  his  own  rule  of  superiority,  makes 
the  Vatican  manuscript,  as  Hug  decided,  the 
first  in  order  of  age,  and,  as  Tregelles'  rule  indi- 
cates, the  first  in  authority.  That  it  was  re- 
garded by  its  Greek  possessors  imperfect  is  in- 
dicated by  Hug's  citation  of  insertions  made  in 
a  different  hand  at  two  successive  eras.  As  to 
carelessness    in    its   preservation,   Hug    states : 


26  NEW  TESTAMENT  GREEK  TEXT. 

''  It  contains  ....  in  the  following  order,  the 
Gospels,  Acts,  the  Catholic  and  Pauline  epistles 
as  far  as  Heb.  ix.  14.  The  Epistles  to  Timo- 
thy, Titus,  Philemon,  together  with  the  Apoca- 
lypse, have  been  destroyed  by  time."  Tischen- 
dorff  states  that  an  edition  begun  in  1828,  by 
Mai,  afterwards  Cardinal,  was  not  published  till 
after  his  death  in  1857;  and  his  own  examina- 
tion in  1867  showed  that  the  work  of  Mai  was 
'*  extremely  inaccurate  " ;  and  he  adds,  "many 
hundreds  of  his  errors  are  corrected  by  the 
present  writer."  The  thoughtful  reader  may 
well  ask :  if  many  "  hundreds  of  corrections  " 
were  required  in  this  modern  copy,  may  not  the 
hundreds  of  departures  from  the  universally 
"  received  text "  found  in  this  old  Egyptian 
copy  manuscript,  which  are  noted  by  Tischen- 
dorff  in  his  English  Testament,  have  also 
needed  the  corrections  made  by  Greek  schol- 
ars centuries  before  it  was  studied  at  Rome  by 
modern  scholars  ? 

The  second  manuscript  in  importance,  ac- 
cording to  Tregelles  as  well  as  Hug,  is  the  Al- 
exandrine ;  so  called  by  English  scholars  be- 
cause it  was  brought  from  Alexandria,  Egypt, 
by  a  bishop  of  the  Greek  Church  to  Constanti- 
nople ;  where  it  was  made  a  present  to  Charles 
I.,  and  came  into  the  British  Museum.  It  is 
doubtless  this  manuscript  to  which  Poole,  writ- 


THE  ALEXANDRINE  MANUSCRIPT. 


2; 


ing  under  Charles  11. ,  alludes,  on  ist  John  v.  7, 
as  the  "  Britannic  "  ;  as  Hug,  nearly  two  centuries 
later,  refers  to  it  under  the  name  of  the  Mu- 
seum, where  it  is  guarded  as  the  *'  Britannic." 
The  characteristics  of  this  manuscript  are  the 
following:  Its  letters  are  square,  larger  than 
those  of  the  Vatican  manuscript ;  the  words  are 
not  separated;  initials  are  of  larger  size;  sec- 
tions are  indicated  by  blank  spaces ;  there  are 
neither  accents  nor  punctuation-marks  ;  all  in- 
dicating, Hug  states,  that  it  *Svas  written  in 
Egypt,"  by  a  copyist  not  a  Greek.  There  are 
two,  instead  of,  as  in  the  Vatican,  three,  or  six 
columns  to  the  page;  the  lines  are  not  "  sticho- 
metric,"  but  continuous;  while,  however,  in- 
serted dots  indicate  the  ends  of  the  lines  in  the 
earlier  manuscript  from  which  it  was  copied. 
This  later  device,  like  the  paging  of  earlier  edi- 
tions of  the  Greek  and  Latin  fathers,  and  of  the 
Law  Commentaries  of  Blackstone  and  Kent,  in- 
serted in  later  editions,  manifestly  indicates  that 
the  stichometric  arrangement  of  Hebrew  manu- 
scripts, and  of  the  Greek  translations  made  by 
Hebrews,  was  designed  for  convenience  of  refer- 
ence ;  made  necessary  before  the  division  into 
chapters  and  verses  had  been  introduced.  Hug 
reckons  this  manuscript,  therefore,  among  the 
stichometric  ;  as  it  is  also  uncial  so  far  as  the 
form  of  the  letters  is  concerned.     As  to  care  in 


28  NEW  TESTAMENT  GREEK  TEXT. 

preservation,  all  examiners  mention  that  the 
former  portion,  unlike  the  Vatican,  which  lacks 
the  latter  portions,  is  lost  up  to  Matt.  xxv.  6 ;  as 
are  also  the  leaves  constituting  John  vi.  50  to 
viii.  52,  and  2  Cor.  iv.  13  to  xii.  2.  This  was  the 
chief  manuscript  personally  examined  by  Tre- 
gelles.  Tischendorff  makes  this  fuller  historical 
statement :  "  The  Alexandrine  Codex  was  pre- 
sented to  King  Charles  the  First  in  1628  by  Cy- 
ril Lucar,  Patriarch  of  Constantinople,  who  had 
himself  brought  it  from  Alexandria  ;  of  which 
place  he  was  formerly  Patriarch,  and  whence  it 
derives  its  name."  Tischendorff  adds  this  more 
important  statement:  "The  manuscript  con- 
tains the  Epistle  of  Clemens  Romanus  (the 
only  known  copy),  a  letter  of  Athanasius,  and 
a  treatise  of  Eusebius  on  the  Psalms."  The 
thoughtful  student  would  naturally  be  prepared 
for  the  suggestion  of  Tischendorff  as  to  its  fel- 
low manuscript,  the  Sinaitic,  that  this  addition 
is  proof  that  the  copyist  did  not  discriminate 
between  the  inspired  and  uninspired  writings ; 
and  so  could  not  have  been  an  intelligent 
guardian  of  the  sacred  text. 

The  third  and  most  important  of  the  three 
manuscripts  regarded  by  both  Tischendorff  and 
Tregelles  as  of  supreme  authority  in  fixing 
the  Greek  text  of  the  New  Testament  is  the 
Sinaitic.      It  was  discovered   by  Tischendorff 


THE  SIN  A I  TIC  MA  N  U  SCRIP  T.  29 

when  at  the  Greek  convent  at  Mt.  Sinai  in 
1844,  i^'^  ^  manner  which  indicated  the  httle 
vakie  placed  on  it  by  its  Greek  possessors.  In 
a  waste  basket  his  eye  rested  on  a  leaf  of 
parchment ;  which  on  examination  proved  to 
be  a  portion  of  the  Greek  translation  of  the 
Old  Testament.  Farther  search  revealed  other 
leaves ;  the  monks  on  being  questioned  and 
promised  a  fee  produced  others ;  but,  while 
Tischendorff  Vvas  occupied  in  assorting  and  ar- 
ranging them,  the  monks  suddenly  interposed 
and  w^ould  permit  no  farther  examination.  It 
was  not  until  fifteen  years  later,  in  1859,  that, 
furnished  by  the  Russian  Government  with 
means  for  the  purchase,  and  commended  by 
the  authority  of  the  associated  convents  of 
Egypt,  whose  interposition  was  prompted  by 
the  patronage  of  the  Emperor  of  R.ussia,  Tisch- 
endorff succeeded  in  purchasing  the  entire  man- 
uscript of  which  those  leaves  were  a  part.  The 
manuscript  meanwhile  had  been  examined  by 
different  visitors  to  the  convent ;  among  others 
by  a  learned  English  party  with  which  the 
writer  was  temporarily  associated  in  1848.  In 
1862  the  Russian  Government  issued,  and  sent 
to  leading  allied  Governments,  fac-similes  of 
this  manuscript;  one  of  which  was  long  un- 
rolled in  a  central  case  of  the  main  gallery  at 
the  Smithsonian  Institution,  and  was  subject  to 


30  NEW  TESTAMENT  GREEK  TEXT. 

the  inspection  of  scholars.  The  main  charac- 
teristics of  this  manuscript,  as  stated  by  Tisch- 
endorff,  are  these  :  It  is  written  in  four  columns 
to  a  page.  The  New  Testament  portion  is 
complete,  "  without  the  loss  of  a  single  leaf." 
Yet  more,  as  Tischendorff,  unconscious  of  the 
inference  necessarily  following  from  the  fact, 
states :  "  In  addition  it  contains  the  entire 
Epistle  of  Barnabas  and  a  portion  of  the  Shep- 
herd of  Hermas;  two  books,  which,  down  to 
the  beginning  of  the  fourth  century,  were 
looked  upon  by  many  as  Scripture."  This 
manifest  contradiction  to  Tischendorff's  later 
statement  led  Tregelles  so  to  doubt  the  accuracy 
of  Tischendorff's  judgment,  that  he  manifestly 
undervalued  the  Sinaitic,  which  alone  contained 
all  the  New  Testament  writings,  as  compared 
with  the  Vatican  and  Alexandrine  manuscripts. 
The  statement  itself  of  Tischendorff  convinces 
every  impartial  student  of  the  demonstrated 
fact :  that  the  copyist  of  the  Sinaitic  manuscript 
was  like  those  of  the  Vatican  and  Alexandrine, 
an  Egyptian  mechanical  transcriber;  who  was 
ignorant  of  the  nature  of  the  work  which  he 
was  tracing  in  mere  outline.  The  dependence 
of  the  convent  at  Mt.  Sinai,  where  the  manu- 
script was  found,  upon  Egypt  for  all  its  sup- 
plies, makes  the  origin  of  this  manuscript  as 
clear  as  that  of  the  two  associated  manuscripts 


IMPERFECTIONS  OF  THE  SINAITIC. 


31 


already  considered.  As  to  its  imperfection,  ap- 
parent to  the  eye  and  recognized  by  its  Greek 
possessors,  Tischendorff  states  that  at  no  less 
than  ten  successive  eras,  as  the  changed  hand- 
writing shows,  this  manuscript  was  corrected  by 
Greek  revisers.  Some  of  these  corrections,  in- 
dicating the  grossest  carelessness,  are  the  fre- 
quent omission  of  entire  lines,  afterwards  in- 
serted ;  and  sometimes  the  insertion  of  the  same 
line  a  second  time,  the  pen  of  the  Greek  reviser 
having  erased  the  careless  insertion.  No 
thoughtful  student  can  avoid  the  question, 
"From  zvhat  were  the  corrections  made?" 
The  fact  is  demonstrative, — it  is  seen  in  every 
insertion  cited  yet  rejected  by  Tregelles, — that 
the  "koine  ekdosis,"  the  common 'text  always 
recognized, — as  Hug  traces  it  and  as  Tregelles 
admits  its  history, — was  in  the  hands  of  the 
Greek  revisers  of  the  Sinaitic  manuscript.  The 
suggestion  is  a  natural  one,  which  may  hereafter 
be  verified,  that  the  original  from  which  these 
corrections  were  made,  and  which  a  Greek  con- 
vent would  never  surrender,  is  still  in  the  hands 
of  the  monks ;  and  it  may  yet  be  brought  to 
light.  Tischendorff  proceeds  :  "  All  the  consid- 
erations which  tend  to  fix  the  date  of  manu- 
scripts lead  to  the  conclusion  that  the  Sinaitic 
Codex  belongs  to  the  middle  of  the  fourth  cent- 
ury.   Indeed,  the  evidence  is  clearer  in  this  case 


32  NEW  TESTAMENT  GREEK  TEXT. 

than  in  that  of  the  Vatican  Codex ;  and  it  is  not 
improbable  (which  cannot  be  the  case  with  the 
Vatican  manuscript)  that  it  is  one  of  the  fifty 
copies  of  the  Scriptures  which  the  Emperor 
Constantine  in  the  year  331  directed  to  be 
made  for  Byzantium  under  the  care  of  Eusebius 
of  Csesarea.  In  that  case  it  is  a  natural  infer- 
ence that  it  was  sent  from  Byzantium  to  the 
monks  of  St.  Catharine  by  the  Emperor  Justin- 
ian, the  founder  of  the  convent."  This  amiable 
admiration  for  his  own  discovered  and  secured 
ancient  treasure  every  earnest  explorer  can  ap- 
preciate ;  while  at  the  same  time  all  his  brother 
explorers,  like  Tregelles,  regard  it  as  an  amiable 
weakness ;  since  the  evidence  is  clearer  than  in 
the  case  of  the  other  two  manuscripts  that  no 
Greek  at  Byzantium,  but  that  an  Egyptian 
hand  at  Alexandria  made  this  copy;  though, 
in  the  cloisters  of  St.  Catharine  at  Mt.  Sinai, 
the  manuscript  from  which  Tischendorff's 
Egyptian  copy  was  corrected  may  be  still  hid  ; 
while,  too,  this  original,  from  which  the  correc- 
tions were  made,  may  be  one  of  those  executed 
at  Byzantium  by  order  of  the  Emperor  Con- 
stantine. To  every  scholar  familiar  with  the 
traditional  claim  to  the  succession  to  the  old 
Greek  Empire  made  by  the  Russian  Imperial 
family,  a  tradition  which  has  preserved  to  this 
day  the  names  Alexander  and  Constantine  as  a 


MINOR  UNCIAL  MANUSCRIPTS.  33 

household  inheritance, — to  such  scholars  the  re- 
sult of  this  claim  for  his  manuscript  may  be 
seen  in  the  added  statement :  "  The  entire 
Codex  was  published  by  its  discoverer,  under 
the  orders  of  the  Emperor  of  Russia,  in  1862, 
with  the  most  scrupulous  exactness,  and  in  a 
truly  magnificent  shape ;  and  the  New  Testa- 
ment portion  was  issued  in  a  portable  form  in 
1863  and  1865."  The  Republic  of  Letters  re- 
joice in  this  result ;  whether  the  authority  of 
the  manuscript  be  of  the  highest  or  lowest 
order. 

THE  UNCIAL  AND  STICHOMETRIC  MANUSCRIPTS 
OF   SECOND   VALUE. 

As  heretofore  observed,  while  Hug  makes  the 
distinction  between  the  stichometric,  or  "  line- 
measured,"  and  the  "  non-stichometric  "  manu- 
scripts, Tregelles  makes  his  division  between 
''  uncials  prior  to  the  seventh  century "  and 
those  of  later  date.  It  is  sufficient  for  the 
present  survey  to  allude  to  the  chief  manu- 
scripts of  this  class  as  described  in  common  by 
these  two,  the  German  Catholic  and  the  English 
Protestant  examiners.  After  the  Alexandrine, 
marked  A,  the  Vatican,  marked  B,.  and  the 
Sinaitic,  marked  with  the  Hebrew  letter  Aleph, 
because  the  Roman  letters  were  previously  ap- 
propriated, come  the  following.  Codex  C  is 
3 


34  J^EW  TESTAMENT  GREEK  TEXT. 

called  "  Ephrseem  "  because  on  selected  leaves 
of  an  Egyptian  uncial  manuscript  there  had 
been  copied  some  treatises  of  Ephraeem,  a 
Syrian  Christian  writer  of  the  age  succeeding 
Constantine.  These  selected  leaves,  embracing 
a  considerable  portion  of  the  New  Testament, 
were  written  after  the  Greek  manner,  across  the 
page,  and  not  in  columns ;  the  manuscript  was 
uncial,  though  not  stichometric  ;  and  the  por- 
tion preserved  is  styled  a  "  palimpsest,"  or 
erased  manuscript,  because  the  inked  lines  of 
the  New  Testament  Greek  had  been  partially 
obliterated  in  order  that  the  new  work  might 
be  written  on  the  parchment.  This  manuscript 
is  in  the  Royal  Library  at  Paris ;  it  was  referred 
to  by  Poole  as  the  Parisian  ;  it  is  fully  described 
by  Hug;  it  was  edited  by  Tischendorff  in  1841  ; 
and  it  was  examined  by  Tregelles.  The  reason 
of  its  being  used  thus  Hug  finds  to  be  the  little 
value  placed  on  it  by  its  Greek  owners ;  his 
statement  being:  "The  ancient  characters  had 
become  obsolete ;  people  had  become  accus- 
tomed to  the  cursive  hand  with  all  its  reading- 
points  and  division-marks;  and  they  seized  upon 
an  old  manuscript  to  apply  them  to  a  better 
purpose."  It  contains,  with  considerable  breaks, 
the  entire  list  of  New  Testament  writings  in  the 
order  of  the  Vatican  and  Alexandrine  copies ; 
its  letters  are  handsome  uncials ;  it  had  none  of 


THE  BEZA  MANUSCRIPT.  35 

the  Greek  accents,  and  few  punctuation-marks  ; 
and  the  words  are  not  separated.  That  it  was 
a  copy  made  in  Egypt  Hug  declares :  "■  This 
Codex,  Hkewise,  was  written  in  Alexandria  or 
somewhere  in  Egypt  "  ;  and  cites  characteristics 
which  so  prove.  That  it  was,  like  all  the  others 
named,  corrected  as  imperfect  by  Greek  revisers. 
Hug  twice  states ;  remarking  as  to  inserted 
punctuation-marks :  '^  a  later  hand  has  almost 
invariably  written  in  different  ink,"  etc.  ;  and 
declaring  as  to  general  corrections :  "  In  com- 
paring this  manuscript  with  the  Alexandrine 
we  find  it  has  not  so  many  additions  attribut- 
able to  a  later  hand." 

Codex  D,  containing  the  Gospels  and  Acts,  is 
stichometric ;  and  it  has  the  Latin  of  Jerome  in 
parallel  columns ;  it  has  no  Greek  accents  ;  and 
it  lacks  some  leaves.  From  Alexandria  it  mani- 
festly passed  into  Latin  hands;  it  was  used  by 
Robert  Stephens  in  1550  in  preparing  his  text ; 
it  passed  into  the  hands  of  Beza  and  went  to 
the  Cambridge  Library  under  his  name  in  1581. 
As  to  the  copyist.  Hug  says  :  "  The  calligraphist 
knew  but  little  of  Greek  and  as  little  of  Latin. 
Unskilled  in  these  languages,  he  wrote  his 
manuscript  in  his  professional  capacity.  He 
was  an  Egyptian  or  Alexandrian."  Of  these 
facts  Hug  cites  proofs ;  as  also  as  to  pages  lost 
from  the  manuscript   and  supplied  from  other 


36  NE  W  TESTAMENT  GREEK  TEXT. 

sources.  It  should  be  observed  that  this  manu- 
script is  the  one  held  in  chief  esteem  by  those 
who  regard  the  uncial  manuscripts,  because  of 
their  antiquity,  to  be  special  authority. 

Codex  E  contains  only  the  Acts,  and  lacks 
some  pages  ;  it  is  uncial  and  stichometric ;  it 
has  no  Greek  accents ;  and  it  has  the  Latin  of 
Jerome.  Hug  says  :  "  It  is  the  second  known 
Greco-Latin  manuscript  which  is  of  Alexandrian 
origin."  Prior  to  the  eighth  century  it  was 
known  in  Sardinia;  coming  to  England  it  was 
presented  by  Archbishop  Laud  to  the  Bodleian 
Library ;  and  its  character,  as  well  as  history,  is 
familiar  in  the  Oriental,  Roman,  and  Reformed 
Churches.  Codex  D,  consisting  of  the  Epistles 
of  Paul,  sometimes  regarded  as  a  continuation 
of  the  Codex  Beza,  though  in  a  very  different 
hand-writing,  has  the  Greek  and  Latin  text ;  it 
is  uncial  and  stichometric ;  it  was  copied  by 
different  hands ;  it  has  many  later  corrections  ; 
and  some  portions  have  been  retouched  with 
ink.  It  is  in  the  Paris  Library.  Codex  F  was 
formerly  at  Reichenau,  Switzerland,  in  a  Bene- 
dictine monastery;  but  it  passed  to  Cambridge, 
England.  It  has  the  Greek  and  Latin  in  uncial 
letters  and  in  stichometric  lines ;  the  Greek 
having  no  accents,  though  the  words  are  sepa- 
rated. Codex  G,  sometimes  regarded  as  a  copy 
of  P\  Hug  shows  to  have  been  a  copy,  as  F, 


CONCLUSIONS  AS  TO  UNCIALS.  37 

from  an  earlier  corrected  manuscript ;  some  of 
whose  corrections  were  omitted  by  each.  Both 
these  are  in  Germany.  Codex  H,  now  at  Metz, 
France,  is  traced  by  Hug  to  Mt.  Athos,  Greece. 
It  is  uncial  and  stichometric.  As  indicating 
that  it  was  regarded  by  Greek  scholars,  in  the 
centre  of  Grecian  culture,  as  of  no  intrinsic 
value,  Hug  states:  "  In  earlier  times  this  Codex 
was  on  Mt.  Athos ;  where  it  was  used  for  old 
parchment  to  cover  books  in  1208;  as  appears 
from  a  note  in  the  book  which  it  was  used  to 
cover." 

Thus  ends  Hug's  list  of  stichometric  uncials. 
All  the  important  ones  are  traceable  to  mere 
mechanical  Egyptian  copyists  at  the  seat  of  the 
first  cosmopolitan  Christian  school  at  Alexan- 
dria ;  all  were  regarded  by  Greeks  as  uncon- 
formed  to  their  own  "  koine  ekdosis,"  and  hence 
were  repeatedly  corrected ;  all  were  esteemed  of 
no  value  except  as  relics;  and  as  such,  mere 
relics,  their  Greek  owners  parted  with  them  as 
fit  collections  only  for  a  museum.  As  these 
most  ancient  of  the  list,  called  "stichometric" 
because  conformed  to  Hebrew  ideas  in  their 
line-measured  columns,  are  all  of  the  character 
thus  indicated,  the  later  manuscripts  of  the 
class,  some  fragments  of  which,  since  Hug  wrote, 
Tischendorff  has  discovered  and  added  to  the 
collection,  need  not  be  farther  considered. 


38  NEW  TESTAMENT  GREEK  TEXT. 

THE   CURSIVE    MANUSCRIPTS   AND   THE 
PRINTED   EDITIONS. 

Of  these  the  most  laborious  collators  like 
Hug  and  Tregelles  could  examine  only  a  few  ; 
and  those  which  they  have  regarded  the  more 
important.  The  number  known  to  the  Re- 
formers, at  the  era  when  Protestant  and  Catho- 
lic presses  published  the  first  printed  editions, 
which  are  so  nearly  alike  and  especially  free 
from  the  appalling  omissions  of  the  uncial  manu- 
scripts— the  number  is  so  variously  stated  that 
it  is  manifest  local  examiners  have  known  only 
a  few  of  the  multitudes  that  exist;  the  few 
which  came  within  their  individual  notice. 
Hug  specially  refers  to  only  six  or  eight ;  the 
first  being  marked  No.  i  at  Basle,  Switzerland, 
and  the  last  No.  579  in  the  Vatican  Library  at 
Rome.  Tregelles  quotes  but  few  numbers; 
sometimes  using  the  abbreviation  rcl.  for  "  rel- 
iqui " ;  which  indicates  that  the  rest,  or  the 
cursive  manuscripts  generally,  are  in  accord. 
The  important  fact  to  retain  in  mind  and  to 
hold  in  thought  is  this:  that  all  these  cursive 
manuscripts  known  to  European  scholars  are 
but  the  rescripts  from  copies  which  the  Greek 
Church  have  furnished  from  their  numberless 
stores ;  for,  while  monks  of  the  Latin  Church 
have  devoted  their  lives  for  centuries  chiefly  to 


PRINTED  EDITIONS  OF  GREEK  TEXT.     30 

the  works  of  the  fathers,  the  monks  of  the 
Greek  Church  and  of  its  Oriental  branches  have 
devoted  themselves  specially  to  copying  the 
Sacred  Scriptures.  From  these  cursive  manu- 
scripts, made  by  native  Greeks  from  their  ''  koine 
ekdosis,"  which,  like  the  common-law,  has  come 
down  from  time  immemorial — from  these  cursive 
Greek  manuscripts,  as  opposed  to  the  uncials 
of  Egyptian  copyists,  most  of  which  were  in 
their  hands,  both  Protestant  and  Roman  Catho- 
lic scholars  made  up  the  text,  which,  when  the 
art  of  printing  was  invented,  became  the  editions 
which  appeared  at  the  age  of  the  Reformation. 
''A  beautiful  invention,"  writes  Hug,  ''released 
the  copyists  from  their  laborious  occupation  ; 
and  who  would  not  imagine  that  it  would  very 
soon  have  been  applied  to  the  documents  of 
Christianity  ?  "  This  natural  outburst  of  a  rev- 
erent and  devoted  Catholic  in  the  beginning  of 
the  19th  century  is  followed  by  the  statement 
that  the  art  of  printing  was  first  applied  to 
classic  authors,  and  then  to  ''  the  Latin  and  Ger- 
man Bible,"  before  it  was  used  in  multiplying 
copies  of  the  inspired  Greek  New  Testament 
records.  The  complete  history  of  editions,  down 
to  his  time,  then  follows ;  beginning  with  that 
of  Cardinal  Ximenes,  begun  1502  and  finished 
1 5 14,  called  the  Complutensian  ;  associated  with 
which  was  that  of  Erasmus,  begun  later,  but 


40  NE  W  TESTAMENT  GREEK  TEXT, 

published  earlier.  Ximenes  had  the  *'  use  of 
the  oldest  and  most  correct  manuscripts  .... 
from  the  Papal  Library.*'  Erasmus  had  Greek 
and  Latin  manuscripts  and  also  collated  quota- 
tions made  by  early  fathers  as  Origen,  Chrysos- 
tom,  Cyril,  Jerome,  Ambrose,  Hilary,  and  Augus- 
tine. Robert  Stephens  followed  ;  with  editions 
published  in  1546,  '49,  and  '50;  to  which  was 
added  one  by  his  son  in  1569.  The  only  pas- 
sage, whose  omission  has  become  marked  in 
later  discussions  as  to  the  uncial  manuscripts, 
that  called  for  special  defence  by  Ximenes  and 
Stephens,  in  these  earliest  printed  editions  of 
the  Greek  New  Testament,  is  that  found  in  i 
John  V.  7.  Of  these  early  editions,  so  far  as 
their  authoritative  originals  are  concerned.  Hug 
says :  they  "  possessed  inestimable  value  in  their 
day " ;  while,  so  far  as  the  collation  of  manu- 
scripts and  the  "  critical  stores  which  were  with- 
in their  reach  in  the  obscurity  of  libraries  "  are 
concerned,  their  resources  did  not  compare  with 
modern  research.  It  is  certain,  however,  that 
these  editions  did  not  make  a  text ;  and  that 
which  they  found  in  the  cursive  manuscripts  at 
hand  was,  as  a  careful  comparison  now  shows, 
the  "koine  ekdosis,"  which  has  come  down 
through  the  ages  unchallenged  in  the  Church 
which  still  uses  only  the  Greek  Scriptures.  As 
to  the  Egyptian  uncial  manuscripts,  since  the 


AUTHORITY  OF  VERSIONS.  41 

Vatican  manuscript  was  in  the  catalogue  of  that 
library  published  in  1475,  it  must  have  been 
among  those  ''oldest"  manuscripts  used  by 
Cardinal  Ximenes  in  1502-14;  while  both  Eras- 
mus and  Stephens  had  some  of  the  more  im- 
portant uncials. 


TRANSLATIONS    IN    ORIENTAL  AND    EUROPEAN 
LANGUAGES. 

While  translations  from  the  Greek  only  indi- 
cate indirectly  and  by  inference  what  the  original 
text  was  from  which  the  translation  was  made, 
and  while  therefore  all  scholars  place  versions 
as  second  in  authority  to  Greek  manuscripts^ 
nevertheless,  as  the  translations  of  Justinian's 
Institutes  are  just  as  authoritative  as  the  origi- 
nal Latin  on  the  bench  of  the  U.  S.  Courts  in 
the  Gulf  States,  so  is  it  with  early  translations 
of  the  New  Testament.  The  versions  of  the 
New  Testament,  as  the  Syriac  and  Latin,  made 
prior  to  the  age  of  the  earliest  known  Greek 
manuscripts,  have  an  authority  superior  to  the 
uncial  manuscripts  so  far  as  antiquity  is  con- 
cerned. And,  it  is  specially  to  be  observed,  that 
the  supposed  authority  of  the  earliest  uncial 
manuscripts  is  made  by  their  advocates  to  rest 


42 


NE  W  TESTAMENT  GREEK  TEXT. 


on  priority  of  existence.  In  his  logical  discus- 
sion of  this  point  Hug  says:  ''  We  are  in  posses- 
sion of  documents  which  are  much  more  ancient 
than  the  oldest  manuscripts " ;  and  he  adds : 
"  so  far  as  the  antiquity  of  the  testimony  merits 
regard  some  of  them  will  even  surpass  the  manu- 
scripts in  authority." 

The  oldest  among  the  Syriac  versions,  as  all 
agree,  is  the  ''  Peschito,"  or  "  Literal ";  to  which, 
as  Hug  shows,  Hegisippus,  a  writer  in  the  latter 
part  of  the  second  century,  refers.  This  version, 
then,  was  made  only  a  century  after  John  wrote 
his  Gospel  and  Epistles ;  and  was  translated 
from  manuscripts  used  two  centuries  before  the' 
oldest  uncial  manuscripts  existed.  This  version, 
Hug  shows  at  length,  was  made  from  the  Greek ; 
and  it  therefore  gives  the  testimony  of  the 
second  century  as  to  what  the  Greek  text  of 
the  then  received  "koine  ekdosis"  was.  Hug 
fills  several  pages  with  proofs  as  to  the  history 
and  the  authority  of  this  earliest  version.  The 
second  Syrian  version  of  note,  called  generally 
the  Philoxenian,  but  styled  by  Tregelles  the 
"  Harclean,"  has  its  history  fixed  by  the  post- 
script;  which  states:  "This  manuscript  was 
translated  from  the  Greek  into  the  Syriac  .... 
in  the  year  of  Alexander  819  (a.d.  508)  in  the 
day  of  Philoxenus It  was  afterwards  col- 
lated, with  care,  by  me,  poor  Thomas,  with  two 


SYRIAC  AND  ARMENIAN  VERSIONS.        43 

very  excellent  and  correct  copies,  in  the  Anto- 
nia  at  Alexandria."  The  translation  was  not  by 
Philoxenus  ;  though  dedicated  to  him  as  bishop. 
The  collation  by  ''  poor  Thomas,"  a  monk  of 
Kharkel,  written  in  German  ''  Charkel  "  and  in 
English  ''' Harkel,"  was  made  A.D.  616.  This, 
and  other  later  Syriac  versions,  as  Hug  shows, 
were  tinctured  by  the  doctrines  of  the  Syrian 
Church ;  still  exemplified  in  the  creed  of  the 
Nestorians  of  the  Persian  mountains,  who,  at 
this  day,  use  a  Syriac  version.  Th-e  third  Syriac 
version,  called  by  Hug  the  *'  Palestino-Syriac," 
and  by  Tregelles  the  "  Jerusalem  "  version,  con- 
tains only  the  Gospel  selections  of  the  Syriac 
liturgy. 

The  Armenian  version,  contemporary  with 
the  invention  of  their  alphabet,  appeared  early 
in  the  fifth  century.  Prior  to  this  time  the  Ar- 
menian Christians  had  used  the  Syriac  transla- 
tion. The  first  effort  at  translation  was  made 
from  the  Syriac ;  but  two  Armenian  scholars, 
who  met  the  Ephesian  Synod  A.D.  431  and 
brought  home  a  carefully  copied  Greek  manu- 
script, afterwards  determined  to  master  the 
Greek  language  at  Alexandria,  Egypt,  and  from 
ft  to  make  a  version.  Their  work  shows,  as  Hug 
indicates,  that  these  Armenian  translators  fol- 
lowed sometimes  the  Ephesian  manuscript,  con- 
formed to  the  "  koine  ekdosis,"  and  sometimes 


44 


NEW  TESTAMENT  GREEK  TEXT, 


an  Egyptian  manuscript  having  the  omissions 
found  in  Codex  D,  the  Cambridge  uncial. 

The  Egyptian  versions  have  an  uncertain  his- 
tory. The  Egyptians,  who  after  the  age  of  Al- 
exander spoke  a  language  into  which  many 
Greek  terms  had  been  introduced,  are  known 
to  have  had  a  version  in  their  tongue  early  in 
the  fourth  century,  prior  to  the  age  of  Constan- 
tine ;  and  Hug  thinks  such  Egyptian  versions 
existed  at  a  yet  earlier  period.  Tregelles  cites 
the  Memphitic,  of  lower  Egypt,  as  a  work  of 
*'  the  third  century  "  ;  and  the  Thebaic,  of  up- 
per Egypt,  as  "  probably  older  than  the  Mem- 
phitic." The  former,  called  by  the  Arabs  "  that 
of  the  coast,"  Hug  states  is  conformed  to  the 
older  uncial  manuscripts ;  as  was  natural  from 
the  location  where  it  originated.  The  latter, 
regarded  by  Tregelles  as  the  older,  and  of 
course  having  its  origin  prior  by  more  than  a 
century  to  the  oldest  uncials,  follows,  as  Hug 
states,  the  text  of  the  "  koine  ekdosis." 

The  Ethiopic  version  is  of  especial  interest ; 
since  after  the  Greek  conquest  of  Egypt,  the 
Greek  language,  as  Cicero  (Orat.  pro  Arch.) 
states,  was  the  classic  tongue  of  the  world.  From 
Gaul  and  Britain,  where  Caesar  in  his  Commen- 
taries says  its  letters  were  used  by  the  Druids, 
even  to  Central  Africa,  the  Greek  was  read  ;  as 
is  illustrated  in  the  book  of  Isaiah,  read  by  the 


ETHIOPIC  AND  ARABIC  VERSIONS. 


45 


Ethiopian  treasurer  of  Queen  Candace,  whose 
quotation  by  Luke  follows  word  for  word  the 
Septuagint  version.  This  fact  is  farther  con- 
firmed by  the  Yoruba  vocabulary  prepared  by 
Bowen,  now  in  the  Smithsonian  collections ; 
which  vocabulary  contains  Greek  terms  still  fa- 
miliar west  of  the  Niger.  Hug  states  that  the 
Ethiopic  version  was  made  by  a  young  soldier 
of  Constantine's  day,  named  Frumentius,  who 
was  taken  captive  by  the  Ethiopians,  but  made 
a  favorite  ;  and  who,  after  years  of  preparation, 
inaugurated  the  w^ork  of  Bible-translation  into 
the  Ethiopic  tongue.  Hug  finds  by  examina- 
tion that  the  gospels  must  have  been  translated 
from  a  variety  of  authorities,  specially  from  the 
Egyptian  text ;  that  the  Acts  was  rendered  into 
Ethiopic  from  both  the  Latin  and  Greek  of  the 
age ;  while  the  Epistles  were  conformed  spe- 
cially to  the  Greek  ''koine  ekdosis." 

The  Arabic  versions  appeared  very  much  la- 
ter than  the  other  Oriental  versions.  They 
were  made  when  the  Muhammedan  power  had 
been  established  by  the  Arab  race  throughout 
Northern  Africa  and  Southern  Spain  ;  and  when 
A.D.  718  the  Caliph  Al-Walid  prohibited  Ara- 
bian Christians  from  using  any  other  language 
in  their  worship  than  the  Arabic.  The  ad- 
vanced culture  of  the  Arab  race,  which  culmi- 
nated only  fifty  years  after  this  era  under  Ha- 


46  NE  W  TESTAMENT  GREEK  TEXT. 

roun  el-Rashid,  led  to  the  preparation  of  several 
Arabic  versions,  whose  history  is  fully  traced 
by  Hug.  The  first  was  made  from  the  Latin  of 
Jerome, then  current  in  Spain;  the  second  from 
the  Syriac  Peschito  ;  whose  Greek  original,  as 
we  have  seen,  was  the  koine  ekdosis  of  the  sec- 
ond century ;  while  the  third  was  from  the 
Coptic.  These  three  versions,  however,  as  Hug 
exhaustively  shows,  were  preceded  by  a  version 
made  for  the  Arabs  south  of  Palestine ;  who, 
under  Valens,  less  than  thirty  years  after  Con- 
stantine's  day,  became  Christians.  This  ver- 
sion, though  interpolated  afterwards  by  adher- 
ents of  the  later  versions,  was.  Hug  states, 
''  translated  from  Constantinopolitan  or  Pales- 
tinian manuscripts;  which  are,"  he  adds,  *' the 
basis  of  the  text  we  are  discussing."  This  text, 
then,  substantially  the  "  koine  ekdosis  "  of  Con- 
stantine's  Greek  transcribers,  is,  to  those  seek- 
ing the  true  inspired  originals,  of  the  utmost  im- 
portance. It  is  worthy  of  special  note,  there- 
fore, that,  while  the  Arabic  version  is  given  in 
full  by  Walton  in  his  Polyglott  under  Charles 
n.,  while  also  Walton's  researches  are  quoted 
by  Hug  as  confirming  his  own,  and  while,  too, 
that  version  sustains  in  the  main  the  koine  ekdo- 
sis as  employed  by  King  James'  revisers  and  as 
still  authoritative  in  the  Greek  Church,  Tregel- 
les  makes  no  use  of  or  reference  to  this  impor- 
tant authority. 


LATIN  VERSIONS. 


47 


THE   LATIN  VERSIONS   AND   THEIR  AUTHORITY 
IN   THE   ROMAN   CATHOLIC   CHURCH. 

While  Hug  is,  as  Gesenius  states,  the  most 
exhaustive  and  impartial  of  investigators  as  to 
the  "  Greek  text,"  he  is  also  most  discriminating 
as  well  as  comprehensive  in  his  researches  and 
his  statements  as  to  the  Latin  versions.  There 
were  in  existence,  from  the  second  to  the  fourth 
centuries,  various  Latin  versions  in  different 
parts  of  the  Roman  Empire ;  as  Hug  shows,  by 
quotations  made  from  Latin  fathers  of  different 
lands  and  ages.  His  citations  are  made  from 
Irenaeus  of  the  second  and  Hilary  of  the  fourth 
century,  whose  field  was  in  central  Gaul,  now 
France ;  again,  from  Ambrose  at  Milan  in 
Northern  Italy  near  the  close  of  the  fourth 
century ;  and  yet  again,  from  Cyprian  of  the 
middle  of  the  third,  and  from  Augustine  at  the 
opening  of  the  fifth  century,  both  of  whom 
were  bishops  at  Carthage  in  Africa.  Of  all 
these  early  and  widely  scattered  Latin  versions 
Hug  says  :  '^  The  period  at  which  these  versions 
arose  (the  latter  half  of  the  second  or  the  com- 
mencement of  the  third  century)  was  ....  the 
period  of  the"  koine  ekdosis^  It  was  at  the 
opening  of  the  fifth  century, — ^just  when  the 
Roman  Church  was  contending  for  an  author- 
ity supreme  in  the  Christian  Church,  as  against 


48  NEIV  TESTAMENT  GREEK  TEXT. 

the  Greek  Church  whose  claim  was  a  double 
one,  first  as  heir  to  the  language  of  the  inspired 
New  Testament,  and  second  as  living  at  the  new 
seat  of  the  Empire  fixed  by  Constantine, — it 
was  at  this  era  that  Jerome,  who  spent  thirty 
years  in  Palestine,  the  land  of  the  Sacred  Scrip- 
tures, gave  his  amended  version  to  the  Roman 
Church.  As  the  several  Latin  versions  then  ex- 
isting had  been  prepared  from  manuscripts  and 
versions  so  distant  in  location,  Jerome,  as  Hug 
states,  "  was  careful  in  the  selection  of  his  man- 
uscripts." Hug  adds,  "  He  therefore  employed 
only  copies  of  the  period  of  the  koine  ekdosis ; 
and  scrupulously  avoided  the  editions  of  Lucian 
and  Hesychius." 

The  character  and  comparative  authority  of 
the  Greek  manuscripts  at  his  day  is  fully  stated 
by  Jerome.  Then,  as  at  a  later  period,  the 
three  recensions  of  Hesychius,  Lucian,  and  Ori- 
sren  were  broug^ht  into  contrast  with  the  "koine 
ekdosis  "  ;  and  then,  as  afterwards,  copyists  and 
translators,  as  Hug's  careful  examination  shows, 
were  controlled  in  their  judgment,  more  or  less, 
by  a  preference  for  one  or  the  other  of  these 
guides.  Jerome's  own  statements  as  to  the  Old 
Testament  (adv.  Rufin  L.  H.)  are  as  follows: 
'*  Alexandria  and  Egypt  prize  (laudat)  Hesy- 
chius as  authority  in  their  Septuagint  versions. 
Constantinople,    as    far   as    Antioch,    approves 


JEROMES  GREEK  TEXT.  4q 

(probat)  the  copies  (exempraria)  of  Lucian  the 
martyr.  The  provinces  intermediate  between 
these  read  (legunt)  the  Palestine  codices  ;  which, 
elaborated  by  Origen,  Eusebius  and  Pamphilus 
made  common  (vulgaverunt) ;  and  the  whole 
world  (totusque  orbis)  is  at  strife  (compugnat) 
among  themselves  over  this  triple  variation." 
As  before  observed,  variations  in  the  Greek 
translation  of  the  Old  Testament  were  not  vi- 
tal;  since  the  Hebrew  text  was  preserved  with 
unquestioned  accuracy.  As  to  the  New  Testa- 
ment manuscripts,  regarding  whose  character  as 
inspired,  decision  between  contending  authori- 
ties was  vital,  Jerome  writes  (Praef.  in  IV. 
Evang.  ad  Damasum) :  "  Now  I  speak  of  the 
New  Testament ;  in  which,  as  in  the  entire  Old 
Testament,  a  record  fixed  after  the  Seventy  in- 
terpreters, it  v/as  not  lawful  (licuit)  to  emend 
anything,  so  in  the  New  it  was  not  good 
(profuit)  to  have  amended,  since  the  Scrip- 
ture, before  translated  into  the  tongues  of  many 
nations,  might  teach  those  things  to  be  false 
which  have  been  added."  Here  two  facts  are 
noteworthy.  In  the  age  and  under  circum- 
stances to  form  the  best  possible  judgment, 
Jerome  teaches :  first,  that  the  recensions  of 
Hesychius  and  Lucian,  specially  relied  on  at  the 
two  extreme  points  farthest  from  the  home  of 
Jesus,  were  not  reliable;  second,  that  the  early 
4 


50  NEW  TESTAMENT  GREEK  TEXT. 

versions  were  authoritative  in  fixing  the  Greek 
text.  Hug,  as  a  Catholic,  regarding  as  ''  popes  " 
the  early  ''  bishops  "  of  the  Roman  Church,  in- 
dicates how  slowly  Jerome's  version  gained  con- 
fidence ;  while,  nevertheless,  it  was  at  last  so  re- 
ceived as  to  become  the  foundation  of  the  Latin 
Vulgate.  Hug  states:  ''  In  the  fifth  century  the 
Supreme  pontiff  at  Rome,  Leo  the  Great,  still 
used  the  ancient  version;  and  not  the  purest 
even  of  the  copies  of  that."  Hug  adds:  "The 
authority  of  Gregory  the  Great  in  the  6th  cen- 
tury, first  decided  in  favor  of  the  edition  of  Je- 
rome." 

The  close  resemblance  to  other  Latin  ver- 
sions of  Jerome's  version  in  most  respects,  as  is 
true  of  all  manuscripts  and  versions  of  the  New 
Testament,  which  are  the  same  in  most  of  their 
pages,  permitted  designed  or  undesigned  errors 
to  creep  in  through  copyists.  Hence  in  the  8th 
century,  when  a  new  demand  called  for  it,  a  re- 
vision was  called  for  and  was  made.  Christian- 
ity, which  ruled  Gaul,  Britain  and  Ireland 
through  the  Franks,  who  from  the  East  of  the 
Rhine  had  taken  possession  of  the  country 
which  from  their  name  came  to  be  called  France, 
had  at  this  era  gradually  penetrated  into  Ger- 
many. The  Saxons  resisting  its  spread,  Charle- 
magne determined  by  force  of  arms  to  extend 
its    sway.      Alcuinus,    called    from    Ireland    to 


ALCUIN'S  LATIN  REVISION. 


51 


found  the  schools  which  have  since  become 
leading  Universities  in  France  and  Germany, 
felt  himself  called  to  prepare  a  revised  edition 
of  Jerome's  Latin  version  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment. Hug  minutely  describes  an  early  manu- 
script of  this,  "  king  Charles'  emendation," 
which  he  had  examined.  By  numerous  ex- 
amples Hug  proceeds  to  show  that  *' Alcuin  in- 
tended nothing  more  than  to  restore  Jerome's 
Bible  as  accurately  as  possible."  This  edition, 
introduced  ''  by  royal  injunction,"  became  the 
authorized  version  in  France  till  the  Council  of 
Trent.  Various  discrepancies  in  the  manuscript 
copies,  pointed  out  by  Robert  Stephens  and 
others,  led  to  the  discussions  of  the  Council  of 
Trent ;  in  which,  Hug  states :  "  it  was  even  se- 
riously proposed  to  make  use  of  a  particular 
Hebrew  and  Greek  manuscript  and  to  translate 
it  into  Latin."  In  view  of  the  renewed  "  con- 
troversies and  innovations "  which  would  be 
thus  encouraged,  says  Hug:  "  It  was  most  pru- 
dent to  confirm  the  authority  of  the  received 
Church-version."  This  decree  of  the  Council 
of  Trent  Hug  justifies,  in  a  long  discussion,  on 
this  ground :  "  As  in  civil  affairs  an  authentic 
instrument  is  valid  evidence,  so  in  public  relig- 
ious matters  the  Vulgate  is  a  document  from 
which  valid  argument  may  be  drawn  ;  without 
prejudice,  however,  to  other  documents.     But 


52 


NEW  TESTAMENT  GREEK  TEXT. 


this  is  not  a  prescription  of  doctrine,  and  from 
its  nature  could  not  be ;  it  is  a  decree  on  a 
point  of  discipline,  having  reference  to  the  cir- 
cumstances of  the  times  in  which  it  was  is- 
sued." 


THE   GOTHIC,  OR   OLD   GERMAN  VERSION. 

With  a  spirit  of  romance  like  that  of  Tischen- 
dorff,  Hug  traces  the  history  of  an  ancient  man- 
uscript "  written  in  an  old  German  dialect  in 
letters  of  silver,"  long  treasured,  though  un- 
read, at  Prague ;  which  was  captured  by  the 
Swedes,  carried  to  Stockholm,  and  after  varied 
fortunes  began  to  be  studied  by  Swedish  schol- 
ars ;  whose  royal  house,  like  that  of  the  Danes, 
still  boast  their  Gothic  descent.  Hug's  long 
and  graphic  history  of  this  manuscript  brings 
him  back  to  the  origin  of  the  Gothic  version  ; 
several  copies  of  which  have  since  come  to 
light.  After  the  Council  of  Nice,  under  Con- 
stantine,  the  Christian  faith  began  to  prevail 
among  the  Goths  bordering  on  ancient  Scythia. 
Under  Valens,  about  A.  D.  370,  Ulphilas  in- 
vented an  alphabet  and  translated  the  Old  and 
New  Testament  into  his  native  Gothic.  While 
evidence  of  connection  with  Latin  versions  occa- 


RULES  FOR  DETERMINING  THE   TEXT.     53 

sionally  appears,  which  fact  Hug  illustrates  by 
numerous  citations,  he  adds:  "The  translation 
is  made  from  the  Greek  text ;  .  .  .  .  from  a 
Greek  manuscript  belonging  to  the  Constanti- 
nopolitan  recension."  Though  corruptions  have 
crept  into  some  copies  of  this  version,  it  is  one 
of  special  authorit}',  in  the  main,  as  sustaining 
the  generally  received  Greek  text. 


RULES  FOR  DECIDING  ON  THE  TRUE  TEXT 
OF  THE  GREEK  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

Three  of  the  leading  writers,  whose  combined 
researches  must  guide  the  impartial  student, 
namely,  Poole,  Hug  and  Tregelles,  state  the 
principles  which  have  guided  Christian  schol- 
ars of  all  ages  in  the  determination  of  the  true 
text  of  the  New  Testament  Greek  Scriptures. 
The  grounds  of  Poole's  judgment,  though  not 
formally  brought  together,  are  learned  from  his 
repeated  arguments  in  discussing  especially  the 
omissions  in  certain  Greek  uncial  manuscripts 
and  in  some  versions.  Thus  as  to  the  omission 
of  the  doxology  in  the  Lord's  Prayer,  found  in 
the  uncial  manuscripts,  now  indicated  as  C.  and 
D.,  which  he  had  examined,  as  also  in  the  Latin 
of  Jerome   and    of  the  Vulgate,  Poole   states 


54  NEIV  TESTAMENT  GREEK  TEXT. 

these  principles.  The  doxology  is  found  in  the 
''  mother  language  " ;  meaning  in  the  Greek  text 
as  received  to  this  day  in  the  Greek  and  Ori- 
ental Church.  As  to  the  omission  of  the  dox- 
ology in  the  uncial  manuscripts,  he  argues  that 
an  insertion  in  the  sacred  text  necessarily  im- 
plies studied  invention  and  designed  alteration ; 
while  an  omission  implies  merely  unintentional 
neglect.  As  to  the  versions  the  Latin  is  but 
one  of  many  "  daughters  "  ;  and  that  one  more 
remote  from  its  ''  mother "  than  the  Oriental 
versions  which  retain  it.  As  to  the  Latin  fa- 
thers, who  omit  the  doxology  in  quoting  the 
Lord's  Prayer,  it  may  have  been,  he  suggests, 
Luke's  briefer  statement  of  that  prayer  which 
they  had  in  mind  ;  while,  on  the  other  hand,  he 
urges  that  the  quotation  of  that  doxology  by 
leading  Greek  fathers  is  positive,  and  not  like 
the  Latin  omission  of  it,  mere  negative  testi- 
mony. 

Hug  presents  more  formally  his  ''Principles 
of  Criticism "  in  a  chapter  following  his  ex- 
haustive discussion  of  the  Greek  manuscripts 
and  of  the  varied  ancient  versions.  He  is  em- 
phatic in  rebuking  those  who,  from  doctrinal  or 
philological  prejudice,  fix  on  a  class  of  manu- 
scripts or  on  a  selection  of  variations  in  differing 
classes  of  manuscripts  of  versions  and  of  patris- 
tic citations  which  chance  to  favor  their  previ- 


HUG'S  ELABORATE  RULES  OF  JUDGING.    55 

ous  opinions.  He  says :  "  It  has  ceased  to  be 
the  case  that  a  scholar,  irresolute  which  of  the 
multitude  he  should  follow,  can,  according  to 
his  taste,  or  his  preference  for  a  particular  manu- 
script, or  a  liking  for  some  peculiarity,  some 
new  various  readings  in  a  particular  Codex,  or 
other  grounds  not  at  all  better,  select  and  form 
a  text  which  may  be  destroyed  by  the  next 
editor ;  who  does  it  only  to  see  the  same  right 
exercised  upon  him  by  his  successor." 

Hug  classifies  all  the  authorities,  including 
Greek  manuscripts,  versions  and  patristic  cita- 
tions, under  four  heads  ;  those  following  (i)  the 
koine  ckdosis,  (2)  the  Hesychian  recension,  (3) 
the  Lucian  recension,  (4)  the  recension  of  Ori- 
gen  ;  and  he  enumerates  the  manuscripts  and 
the  versions  or  parts  of  versions  which  respect- 
ively follow  these  four  classes  of  authorities. 
Among  these  the  following  are  important  as 
guides  in  forming  a  just  decision  as  to  the  omis- 
sions found  in  the  Canterbury  revision.  The 
text  of  the  "  koine  ekdosis ''  rules  the  Gospels, 
Acts,  Catholic  and  Pauline  Epistles  in  the  codi- 
ces D,  Cambridge  and  Parisian ;  it  prevails 
throughout  the  Syriac  Peschito  and  pervades 
the  Syriac  of  Charkel ;  and  it  controlled  in  the 
early  Latin  versions.  On  the  other  hand  the 
Hesychian  recension  guided  the  Egyptian  copy- 
ists in  the  Gospels  of  codices  B  and  C,  or  the 


56  NEW  TESTAMENT  GREEK  TEXT. 

Vatican  and  Ephraeem  manuscripts ;  and  also  in 
the  Acts  and  in  all  the  Epistles  of  codices  A,  B, 
C ;  or  the  Alexandrine,  Vatican  and  Ephraeem 
manuscripts.  Thus,  according  to  this  most  com- 
prehensive as  well  as  logical  collator,  the  uncials, 
now  trusted  as  supreme  authority,  were  made 
from  a  text  which  Origen,  and  after  him  every 
branch  of  the  Christian  Church  has  regarded  as 
influenced  by  doctrinal  views  opposed  to  the 
Divine  nature  and  to  the  expiatory  sacrifice  of 
Jesus  Christ.  Hug  had  not  the  third  of  the 
three  most  complete  uncials,  the  Sinaitic ;  but 
Tischendorff 's  collation  of  the  three  shows  their 
common  character. 

Recurring  to  the  *^  common  text,"  Hug  says  : 
''  The  koine  ckdosis,  as  v/e  have  shown,  exhibits 
the  ancient  text ;  but  with  many  alterations 
which  it  underwent  during  the  second  and  a 
part  of  the  third  century."  This  statement,  as 
to  the  "  koine  ekdosis,"  the  unbiassed  student 
perceives,  has  received  from  Hug  this  qualifica- 
tion only  to  prepare  the  way  for  the  author's 
defence  of  the  omissions  incorporated  into  the 
Latin  Vulgate;  which,  as  we  shall  see  Hug 
tacitly  admits,  follow  the  Egyptian  uncials  and 
the  Hesychian  recension.  The  three  recensions 
of  Lucian,  Hesychius,  and  Origen  were  all  made 
nearly  at  the  same  time,  at  the  close  of  the 
third   century.     The    settled   judgment    of  the 


HUG  ON  ADDITIONS  AND  OMISSIONS. 


57 


Greek  Church,  in  the  beginning  of  the  fourth 
century,  established  the  text  of  the  manuscripts 
prepared  by  Constantine's  order ;  and  that  early 
decision  as  to  the  respective  merit  of  each  recen- 
sion as  compared  with  the  "koine  ekdosis,"  is 
still  authoritative  in  all  branches  of  the  Oriental 
Church. 

With  great  elaborateness  Hug  lays  down  rules 
to  guide  in  deciding  as  to  interpolations  and 
omissions  in  the  true  Greek  text.  He  recog- 
nizes as  undeniable  the  fact  that  the  "koine 
ekdosis "  was  the  standard  when  the  several 
recensions  and  versions  were  made  ;  and  that, 
therefore,  when  all  agree,  which  is  the  case  in 
the  great  body  of  the  different  manuscripts,  the 
true  text  is  assured.  Interpolations,  which  are 
rare,  have  arisen  mainly  from  "  harmonies  ";  in 
which  the  fuller  text  of  one  evangelist  might 
come  to  be  inserted  by  a  careless  copyist  in 
another ;  while,  in  cases  very'  rare,  marginal 
notes,  not  belonging  to  the  text,  may  have  been 
incorporated.  A  careful  comparison  of  the 
Egyptian  uncials  reveals  cases  of  both  these 
kinds ;  though  they  are  so  infrequent  in  com- 
parison with  the  omissions  as  to  give  special 
weight  to  Poole's  rule  on  this  point.  The  causes 
which  have  led  to  the  numerous  omissions  are 
mainly  these :  First,  where  one  clause  ended 
with  words  similar  to  those  in  a  clause  follow- 


58  NEW  TESTAMENT  GREEK  TEXT. 

ing,  the  eye  of  the  copyist,  especially  of  the  me- 
chanical Egyptian  copyists,  wandered  past  the 
intervening  clause.  Second,  omissions  were 
made  intentionally,  when  synonymous  expres- 
sions followed  each  other  and  were  regarded  by 
the  copyist  as  expletives.  Third,  tautological 
expressions,  common  to  Hebrew  writers,  seemed 
to  Greek  copyists,  of  limited  experience,  to  be 
unimportant,  and  so  were  omitted.  To  every 
thoughtful  student  it  must  be  apparent  that 
these  causes  for  omissions  would  be  specially 
operative  in  the  Egyptian  copyists,  as  they  are 
faithfully  characterized  by  Hug;  men  ignorant 
of  both  the  subject  and  wording  of  what  they 
transcribed;  not  discriminating  between  the  in- 
spired and  uninspired  Christian  writings ;  and 
working  as  paid  laborers  on  what  had  for  them 
no  interest,  since  even  the  language  of  the  rec- 
ords was  not  understood  by  many  of  their  num- 
ber. Hug's  rules  for  restoration  of  such  omis- 
sions are  substantially  these :  In  the  first  case 
"  what  is  omitted  must  be  restored  to  the  text," 
without  hesitation.  In  the  second  and  third 
cases,  the  omission  of  one  copy  must  be  re- 
stored from  an  accordant  text  in  other  copies. 

The  elaborately  considered  and  for  the  most 
part  impartially  balanced  decisions  of  Hug,  the 
Roman  Catholic,  so  in  keeping  with  those  of 
the  earlier  judgment  of  the   Protestant  Poole, 


RULES  FOR  DETERMINING  THE   TEXT.     50 

must  rule  in  the  close  of  the  nineteenth  cen- 
tury ;  for  their  rule  has  been  legitimate  alike  in 
Origen  of  the  third,  in  Jerome  of  the  fifth,  in 
Poole  of  the  seventeenth  and  in  Hug  at  the 
opening  of  the  present  century.  The  legitimacy 
of  this  ruling  is  made  demonstrative  by  the  fact 
that  the  "common  text,"  subjected  in  every  im- 
portant age  of  the  Christian  Church  to  precisely 
the  same  tests  which  now  are  trying  it,  has  con- 
stantly received  new  and  growing  confidence 
among  the  earnest  Christian  scholars  of  each 
succeeding  era  of  investigation. 


TREGELLES'  kULES    FOR  DETERMINING  THE 
TEXT. 

The  carefully  considered  rules  of  Tregelles  are 
laid  down  under  nine  heads;  the  sixth  of  which 
has  six  subdivisions.  These  are  stated  in  his 
own  words  where  their  ruling  is  at  variance  with 
those  of  other  judges,  (i)  Where  authorities 
agree  the  text  is  assured.  (2)  If  authorities 
differ  but  slightly,  assurance  is  little  shaken. 
(3)  "  If  the  reading  of  the  ancient  authorities 
in  general  is  unanimous,  there  can  be  little 
doubt  it  should  be  followed,  whatever  may  be 
the  later  testimonies ;  for  it  is  most  improbable 
that  the  independent  testimonies  of  early  man- 


6o  NEW  TESTAMENT  GREEK  TEXT. 

uscripts,  versions  and  Fathers  should  accord ' 
with  regard  to  something  entirely  groundless." 
(4)  A  reading  found  in  versions  alone  can  claim 
but  little  authority.  (5)  A  reading  found  in  pa- 
tristic citations  alone  is  of  still  less  authority. 
(6)  Where  authorities  are  divided,  *'  other 
things  being  equal,"  these  rules  must  guide. 
{a)  An  early  citation,  in  express  terms,  may 
alone  be  decisive.  In  cases  where  decision  can- 
not be  thus  assured,  the  following  guides  may 
be  successively  sought  and  trusted  ;  {U)  if  one 
of  two  readings  accords  with  a  parallel  passage ; 
{c)  if  one  gives  an  amplification  found  elsewhere  ; 
(^)  if  one  of  two  seems  to  avoid  a  difficulty  ;  {e) 
if  one  reading  has  been  copied  by  others ;  (/) 
if  well-known  principles  of  variation  can  be  ap- 
plied. (7)  When  certainty  is  unattainable,  the 
doubtful  passage  should  be  retained,  but  put  in 
brackets.  (8)  When  it  is  certain  that  a  reading 
was  received  in  the  second  or  third  century,  this 
outweighs  all  later  authorities.  (9)  Readings 
sustained  by  the  larger  number  of  authorities 
may  be  unsustained  by  the  superior  authorities. 
These  rules  of  Tregellcs  call  for  attention  less 
in  their  statement  than  in  their  application. 
Rule  3  is  at  variance  with  Poole  and  Hug  when 
the  oldest  existing  Greek  manuscripts,  seen  to 
be  the  Egyptian  uncials  never  trusted  by  the 
Greeks  themselves,  are  accepted  as  supreme  au- 


APPLICATION  OF  TREGELLES  RULES.      6 1 

thority.  Under  rule  6,  item  a,  such  students 
of  the  early  Christian  writers  as  Poole  and  Hug 
think  they  have  found  in  early  Christian  writers 
express  quotations  from  the  New  Testament 
records  which  would  on  Tregelles'  principle  set 
aside  the  authority  of  the  Egyptian  uncials. 
As  to  rule  6,  item  e,  it  should  be  carefully  ob- 
served that  while  Tregelles  applies  it  to  hun- 
dreds of  cursive  manuscripts,  which  he  regards 
as  copied  one  from  another,  he  forgets  to  apply 
it  to  the  Egyptian  uncials;  all  of  which  Hug 
finds  to  be  but  copies  of  a  class.  Under  rule  8 
the  argument  of  Poole  and  Hug,  based  on  the 
acceptance  "  from  time  immemorial "  of  the 
"koine  ekdosis,"  or  "common  text,"  by  the 
Greek  as  well  as  the  combined  Oriental  and 
Western  Churches,  is  a  testimony  which  the 
Egyptian  uncials  have  never  been  supposed  to 
countervail ;  and  these  testimonies  show  that 
the  reading  of  the  second  and  third  century  is 
preserved  in  that  "  common  text."  As  to  num- 
ber 9,  where  the  reference  to  the  numberless 
"cursive "  Greek  manuscripts  is  apparent,  this 
fact  is  specially  to  be  noted.  Hug,  as  before 
mentioned,  specially  describes  six  only ;  begin- 
ning with  the  commonly  recognized  No.  I  and 
ending  with  No.  579.  Tregelles  cites  in  his 
rules  only  Nos.  i,  33  and  69;  whose  original 
text,  though   oft   corrected,  as  his  use  of  them 


62  ^^^  TESTAMENT  GREEK  TEXT. 

shows,  seems  to  sustain  his  view  of  the  Egyptian 
uncials  as  authoritative.  As  to  cursive  No.  i, 
the  only  cursive  manuscript  cited  in  common  by 
Hug  and  Tregelles,  Hug  traces  its  history; 
showing  that  the  copy  was  made  in  the  time  of 
Leo  V. ;  who,  though  he  ruled  as  Pope  only  a 
few  months,  had  special  influence  at  the  close 
of  the  9th  and  at  the  beginning  of  the  loth 
century.  Of  its  text,  conformed  manifestly  to 
the  spirit  of  the  age.  Hug  says:  "The  text  of 
the  Gospels  is  very  different  from  the  text  of  the 
rest  of  the  manuscript."  Tregelles  states  as  to 
it :  *'  A  manuscript  in  the  Library  at  Basle,  con- 
taining all  the  N.  Test,  but  the  Apocalypse ;. 
but  only  of  importance  in  the  text  of  the  Gos- 
pels. Of  the  tenth  century :  examined  by 
many,  and  collated  independently  by  Tregelles 
and  Roth;  when  these  collations  disagree  i^or  i"^ 
indicates  the  respective  collators."  As  to  the 
text  to  which  this  cursive  manuscript  was  orig- 
inally conformed.  Hug  states  that  in  "the  Gos- 
pels "  it  followed  the  "  koine  ekdosis."  Its  use 
by  Tregelles  is  illustrated  on  Matt,  xviii.  1 1  ; 
where  it  is  indicated  that  the  statement,  "  For 
the  Son  of  man  is  come  to  save  the  lost,"  is 
omitted  from  the  original  text  of  this  cursive 
manuscript,  but  was  afterwards  inserted  by  a 
second  corrector  of  the  manuscript.  The  fact 
that  Tregelles  differed  from  Roth  in  his  reading 


OMITTED  PASSAGES  IN  THE   UNCIALS.     63 

oi  the  manuscript  as  a  collator  shows  how  liable 
to  err  the  modern  examiner  as  well  as  the  orig- 
inal copyist  may  prove.  The  setting  aside  by 
Tregelles  of  the  authority  of  the  hundreds  of 
cursive  manuscripts  trusted  as  reliable  by  the 
world  of  Christian  scholars  in  the  past,  the  spe- 
cial devotion  of  such  a  mind  as  that  of  Tregelles 
to  three  selected  copies  regarded  by  him  as  sup- 
porting the  Egyptian  uncials,  and  the  fact  that 
the  judgment  of  Hug  as  to  the  actual  character 
of  that  special  cursive  manuscript  differs  so  ma- 
terially from  that  of  Tregelles — these  facts  jus- 
tify certainly  the  doubt  expressed  by  the  Bishop 
of  St.  Andrews  as  to  the  actual  ^'■consensus  of 
scholarship  "  which  now  demands  the  omission 
of  this  and  other  passages. 


SIX  PASSAGES   IN   MATTHEV^'S   GOSPEL  OMIT- 
TED  BY   THE   UNCIALS. 

As  intimated,  the  common  reader  of  the  Can- 
terbury revision  is  specially  arrested  by  the 
omission  of  passages  familiar  in  the  reading  of 
the  New  Testament  in  the  received  version  pre- 
pared for  and  accepted  by  that  people  who  un- 
der James  I.  had  a  specially  independent,  criti- 
cal, intelligent  and   earnest   body  of  Bible  stu- 


64  NEW  TESTAMENT  GREEK  TEXT. 

dents  as  leaders.  Yet  more,  the  thorough  stu- 
dent of  Hug,  the  most  logical  as  well  as  com- 
prehensive examiner  of  the  ancient  authorities 
which  fix  the  text,  is  specially  intelligent  as  to 
the  origin  of  these  omissions ;  finding  them 
mainly  in  the  Egyptian  uncials.  Still  yet  more 
the  casual  reader  of  Tischendorff's  reprint  of  the 
common  English  version  finds  that  ^//the  omis- 
sions introduced  by  the  new  revisers,  and  very 
many  more,  are  those  as  to  which  the  three 
leading  uncials,  the  Sinaitic,  the  Vatican  and 
the  Alexandrine,  are  frequently  not  in  accord. 
And,  yet  once  more,  the  careful  analyzer  of  the 
omissions  and  notes  of  Tregelles  in  his  revised 
Greek  text  will  observe  when  and  where  his 
conscientious  and  often  perplexed  mind  sought 
a  consistent  judgment  in  cases  when  and  where 
trust  in  the  uncials  forbid  the  attainment  of 
consistency. 

Among  the  very  numerous  omissions  found 
in  the  three  leading  uncials,  the  following  four- 
teen are  specially  important  for  consideration. 
The  utter  impossibility  of  harmonizing  author- 
ities, and  of  securing  consistency  in  the  omis- 
sions allowed  by  Tregelles  and  the  revisers  who 
have  followed  him,  appear  at  every  step  in  the 
consideration  of  these  leading  and  larger  omis- 
sions. These  omissions  are  (i)  Matt.  vi.  13,  the 
Doxology  in  the   Lord's  Prayer ;  (2)  Matt.  xii. 


LIST  OF  PASSAGES  OMITTED.  65 

47,  the  statement  of  a  bystander  as  to  Christ's 
mother  and  brethren;  (3)  Matt.  xvii.  21,  the 
declaration,  "  This  kind  goeth  not  out  but  by 
prayer  and  fasting";  (4)  Matt,  xviii.  11,  the 
statement,  "  The  Son  of  man  is  come  to  save 
that  which  was  lost "  ;  (5)  Matt,  xxiii.  14,  the 
statement  to  the  Pharisees,  ''  Ye  devour  wid- 
ows' houses,"  etc.;  (6)  Matt.  xxiv.  35,  the  dec- 
laration, "  Heaven  and  earth  shall  pass  away," 
etc.;  (7)  Mark  vi.  11,  the  reference  to  Sodom 
and  Gomorrah ;  (8)  Mark  xiii.  14,  the  reference 
to  the  prophet  Daniel;  (9)  Luke  iv.  18,  the 
clause  "  to  heal  the  broken-hearted  "  ;  (10)  John 
v.  4,  the  record  as  to  the  angel's  disturbing  the 
pool;  (11)  John  vii.  53  to  viii.  11,  the  account 
of  the  woman  taken  in  adultery ;  (12)  Acts  viii. 
37,  the  confession  of  the  Ethiopian  at  his  bap- 
tism; (13)  Acts  ix.  6,  the  words  "It  is  hard. 
....  What  wilt  thou  have  me  to  do  ? "  and 
(14)  1st  John  V.  7,  the  declaration,  ''There  are 
three  that  bear  record  in  heaven,"  etc. 

The  testimonies  of  the  leading  authorities  as 
to  these  fourteen  passages  are  as  follows :  Fij^st^ 
the  "koine  ekdosis,"  or  "common  text,"  now 
recognized  in  the  Greek  and  Oriental  Churches, 
which  guided  both  the  Roman  and  Protestant 
revisers  and  translators  at  the  Reformation,  re- 
ceives them  all  as  belonging  to  the  inspired 
original   text.      Second,   the    uncial,    or    oldest 


^^  NEW  TESTAMENT  GREEK  TEXT. 

Greek  manuscripts,  seen  to  have  been  mainly  a 
class  of  copies  made  in  Egypt,  have  this  testi- 
mony. Of  the  six  in  Matthew  the  Alexandrine, 
regarded  by  Tregelles  as  properly  ranked  first 
in  authority,  gives  no  testimony ;  since  that 
portion  of  the  manuscript  was  lost  before  it 
came  to  the  British  capital.  Their  varied  testi- 
mony as  to  the  other  eight  will  appear,  each  in 
its  place. 

Matt.  vi.  13  is  omitted  by  the  Vatican,  Si- 
naitic  and  Cambridge  manuscripts,  D,  and  by 
Jerome  and  the  Latin  Vulgate ;  while  it  is  re- 
tained by  all  the  cursive  Greek  manuscripts,  one 
excepted,  No.  33,  which  generally  follows  the 
Egyptian  uncials,  and  by  the  Syriac  Peschito, 
made  in  the  second  century.  It  is  omitted  by 
Tregelles  and  the  Canterbury  revisers. 

Beside  the  testimony  of  manuscripts,  versions 
and  ancient  citations,  the  doxology  in  the 
Lord's  Prayer  has  a  transcendent  interest  and 
importance,  as  well  as  an  historic  confirmation, 
from  its  connection  with  forms  of  prayer  as  used 
in  all  ages  and  branches  of  the  Christian  Church, 
except  the  modern  Roman  Catholic  Church.  It 
is  found  in  the  liturgies  of  both  Chrysostom  and 
Basil,  used  from  time  immemorial  in  all  the 
branches  of  the  Greek  and  Oriental  Churches ; 
it  was  incorporated  into  the  forms  of  prayer  of 
every  branch  of  the  Protestant  Church ;  it  is  in- 


OMISSIONS  IN-  MA  TTHE  W.  67 

serted  in  the  liturgy  of  the  EngHsh  Church  in 
all  services  in  which  the  people  join,  even  in  the 
communion  service ;  while  in  private  services,  as 
baptism,  it  is  omitted  in  conformity  with  the 
abridged  form  given  by  Luke.  There  is  ground 
for  belief  that  its  omission  from  the  Latin  Gospel 
and  Roman  liturgy  arose  because  of  the  exclu- 
sion of  the  people  from  a  share  in  the  public 
services,  especially  in  the  eucharist. 

Matt.  xii.  47  is  omitted  by  the  Vatican  and 
the  later  Parisian  manuscript,  L,  and  also  by  the 
original  Sinaitic  manuscript,  though  inserted  by 
its  Greek  correctors.  It  is  found  in  all  the  other 
important  uncials,  and  in  all  the  cursive  manu- 
scripts ;  as  also  in  the  Syriac  Peschito,  in  Jerome 
and  the  Latin  Vulgate.  It  is  retained,  contrary 
to  his  own  rule  followed  elsewhere,  by  Tre- 
gelles  ;  ^nd  also  by  the  Canterbury  revisers. 

Matt.  xvii.  21  is  omitted  in  the  Vatican  man- 
uscript, also  in  the  Sinaitic  before  correction, 
and  in  cursive  No.  33.  It  is  retained  in  the 
early  Parisian,  C,  and  in  the  Cambridge,  D,  un- 
cials ;  also  in  all,  save  No.  33,  of  the  cursive 
manuscripts ;  as  also  in  the  Syriac  Peschito,  in 
Jerome  and  in  the  Vulgate.  Though  retained 
and  put  in  brackets  as  doubtful  in  his  first  and 
latest  collations  by  Tregelles,  it  is  entirely  omit- 
ted from  the  text  of  the  Canterbury  revisers. 

Matt,  xviii.  1 1  is  omitted  in  the  Vatican  and 


68        yV^/f  testament  greek  text. 

Sinaitic  manuscripts;  in  the  later  Parisian,  L, 
before  correction  ;  in  cursive  33  and  cursive  i 
before  correction.  It  is  found  in  the  Cambridge 
manuscript,  D,  in  Tischendorff' s  fragments 
(Greek  Pi)  in  the  later  Paiisian,  L,  as  corrected; 
also  in  the  cursives  generally;  and  also  in  the 
Syriac,  in  Jerome  and  the  Latin  Vulgate.  It  is 
omitted  by  Tregelles  and  by  the  Canterbury  re- 
visers. 

Matt,  xxiii.  14  is  omitted  by  the  Vatican,  the 
Sinaitic,  the  Cambridge,  D,  the  later  Parisian,  L, 
uncials;  also  by  cursives  I  and  33,  and  by  Je- 
rome ;  it  is  found  in  not  less  than  eleven  later 
uncials  and  in  the  cursive  manuscripts  generally, 
even  in  69  cited  by  Tregelles;  also  in  the  Syriac 
Peschito  and  the  Latin  Vulgate.  It  is  omitted 
by  Tregelles  and  by  the  Canterbury  revisers. 

Matt.  xxiv.  35  is  omitted  only  by  the  Sinaitic 
among  the  uncial  manuscripts,  and  that  before 
correction.  It  is  found  in  the  Vatican  manu- 
script, and  in  Jerome  and  the  Syriac  and  Latin 
Vulgate.  It  is  retained  by  Tregelles  and  the 
Canterbury  revisers. 

No  thoughtful  and  impartial  student,  in  this 
survey,  can  fail  to  note  these  facts;  and  facts 
must  decide  conclusions.  First,  these  six  of  the 
fourteen  larger  omissions  found  in  the  Egyptian 
copies  are  met  in  the  early  chapters  of  Mat- 
thew ;  at  the  beginning  of  the  work  of  copy- 


DOUBTFUL  GROUNDS  FOR  OMISSIONS.     69 

ists  ignorant  of  the  Greek  language;  and  just 
where  they  would  be  most  likely  to  fall  into  er- 
ror from  inexperience.  Second,  all  these  omis- 
sions are  incapable  of  confirmation  from  the  Al- 
exandrine manuscript,  which  Tregelles  regards 
the  most  authoritative,  since  that  portion  of  the 
manuscript  is  lost.  Third,  five  only  of  the  six 
omissions  occur  in  the  Vatican  manuscript ; 
showing  that  either  the  Sinaitic  or  Vatican, 
which  are  at  variance,  is  in  error.  This  fact  in- 
dicates the  unreliableness  of  both  these  manu- 
scripts at  the  very  beginning  of  the  work  of  in- 
competent copyists.  Fourth,  two  out  of  six  of 
these  omissions  in  the  Sinaitic  manuscript  were 
corrected  by  insertions,  made  while  the  manu- 
scripts were  in  the  hands  of  Oriental  Greeks. 
Fifth,  the  later  uncials,  in  one  case  at  least,  are 
at  variance  with  the  older.  Sixth,  all  the  cursives, 
save  three  which  Tregelles  alone  cites,  and  evi- 
dently because  of  their  conformity  to  his  pre- 
judged conclusion,  namely,  Nos.  i,  33  and  69, 
have  in  their  text  these  omitted  passages ;  and 
one  of  these,  as  Hug  indicates,  was  made  under 
circumstances  which  throw  doubt  on  their  excep- 
tional character  as  a  class.  Seventh,  the  oldest 
translation,  the  Syriac  Peschito,  in  four  at  least,  if 
not  in  all  of  the  six  passages,  is  opposed  to  these 
omissions.  The  manuscripts  from  which  this  ver- 
sion was  made  were  two  centuries  older  than 


JO  NEW  TESTAMENT  GREEK  TEXT. 

the  oldest  uncials;  and,  therefore,  on  Tregelles' 
own  principle,  are  of  superior  authority.  Eighth, 
in  three  out  of  six  of  the  omissions  cited,  the 
passages  are  found  in  the  Latin  of  Jerome ;  and 
in  four  out  of  six  in  the  Latin  Vulgate ;  indi- 
cating the  final  decision  of  Roman  Catholic 
scholars  down  to  the  Reformation.  Ninth,  as 
the  corrections  made  by  early  Greek  scholars  in 
the  Egyptian  copies  are  in  accord  with  the 
"  koine  ekdosis,"  followed  by  the  translators  of 
the  Reformed  Church,  and  still  authoritative  in 
the  Greek  and  Oriental  Churches,  there  is  rea- 
son for  the  conclusion :  that,  as  now,  so  in  the 
age  when  those  corrections  were  made,  the  text 
used  in  King  James'  version  was  in  all  ages  au- 
thority among  Christian  scholars,  to  whom  the 
original  Greek  of  the  New  Testament  was  ver- 
nacular. 


LUKE  S   HISTORIES. 

In  the  specially  full,  though  concise  Gospel 
of  Mark,  two  marked  omissions  occur;  while 
in  the  two  longer  and  specially  historic  records 
of  Luke,  which  were  the  standard  with  Marcion 
in  the  second  century,  only  three  extended 
omissions  call  forth  discussion. 


OMISSIONS  IN  MARK  AND  LUKE.  71 

Mark  vi.  11,  found  in  the  cursive  manuscripts 
which  have  guided  all  branches  of  the  ancient 
and  modern  Church,  is  found  also  in  the  Alex- 
andrine uncial  and  in  the  Syriac  Peschito  ver- 
sion. It  is  omitted  by  the  Vatican  and  Sinaitic 
uncials,  by  Jerome  and  the  Vulgate,  and  by 
Tregelles  and  the  Canterbury  revisers.  The 
fact  that  the  Alexandrine  manuscript  has  it  in 
the  text  of  the  Egyptian  copyist,  and  not  in- 
serted alone  by  a  Greek  corrector,  is  in  the  line 
of  Hug's  positive  proofs  that  it  belonged  to  the 
original  "koine  ekdosis";  whose  readings  are 
unquestionable  authority  when  thus  attested. 
The  acknowledged  testimony  that  the  three 
most  complete  Egyptian  uncials,  the  Alexan- 
drine, Vatican  and  Sinaitic,  belong  to  a  class, 
coming  under  the  ninth  rule  of  Tregelles,  is 
proof  positive  that  the  omission  of  Mark  vi.  11 
from  two  of  these  was  an  error  of  the  copyist ; 
for  the  insertion  by  one  shows  that  it  was  in  the 
text  from  which  the  copyist  transcribed ;  while 
its  omission  by  two  shows  oversight  in  these  two 
copyists. 

Mark  xiii.  14,  precisely  like  Mark  vi.  11,  is 
found  in  all  the  cursives  accepted  in  the  Greek 
and  all  other  branches  of  the  Christian  Church ; 
it  is  in  the  Alexandrine  uncial ;  and  it  is  incor- 
porated into  the  oldest  version,  the  Syriac 
Peschito.     It  is  omitted  by  Jerome  and  in  the 


72  NEW  TESTAMENT  GREEK  TEXT. 

Latin  Vulgate ;  and  also  in  the  Vatican  and 
Sinaitic  uncials.  The  conclusion  is  precisely 
the  same  as  that  necessarily  following  from  the 
same  testimonies  relating  to  Mark  vi.  ii.  Tre- 
gelles  and  the  revisers,  who  follow  him,  omit  it. 
Luke  iv.  1 8  has,  with  a  single  marked  excep- 
tion, the  same  testimony,  as  the  two  passages 
omitted  in  Mark's  Gospel.  It  is  in  the ''com- 
mon text,"  generally  followed  in  all  the 
branches  of  the  Christian  Church.  It  is  omit- 
ted by  the  Vatican  and  Sinaitic  uncials,  and  by 
Jerome.  It  is  found,  however,  in  the  Alexan- 
drine uncial,  and  in  the  Syriac  Peschito ;  and 
also  in  the  Latin  Vulgate.  It  is  omitted  by 
Tregelles,  and  in  the  version  which  follows  his 
text ;  though  the  omission  unquestionably 
comes  under  his  rule  6,  item  d.  The  ''diffi- 
culty," which  the  omission  seeks  to  "  avoid," 
is  the  fact  that  the  clause  "  to  heal  the  broken- 
hearted "  is  not  in  the  Hebrew  text,  though  it 
is  found  in  the  Greek  translations  from  which 
Luke,  as  a  Greek  scholar,  almost  always  quotes. 
The  explanation,  cited  in  every  age  by  Christian 
scholars,  is  legitimate ;  that  Luke,  like  Paul, 
quotes  for  two  reasons  from  the  then  univer- 
sally read  version  of  the  Old  Testament ;  first 
because  it  was  authoritative  with  the  Greeks 
whom  both  Luke  and  Paul  addressed  ;  second 
because   in   this,  as   in   many  like   citations    of 


OMISSIONS  IN  THE  ACTS.  73 

Luke  and  Paul,  the  Greek  translators  by  their 
amplified  statement  presented  really  the  senti- 
ment condensed  in  the  words  or  context  of  the 
concise  Hebrew  ;  using  a  paraphrase  essential 
in  order  that  the  Greek  might  gain  the  Hebrew 
idea. 

Acts  viii.  37,  omitted  from  the  Alexandrine, 
Vatican  and  Sinaitic  uncials,  and  by  Jerome,  is 
found  in  the  universally  received  text  of  the 
cursive  manuscripts  and  in  the  text  of  the 
Greek  Church.  It  is  quoted  by  Irenaeus,  the 
Greek  writer  of  the  second  century,  and  by 
Cyprian,  the  Latin  of  the  third  century;  and  it 
is  a  part  of  the  text  of  the  Latin  Vulgate  as 
well  as  of  all  Protestant  versions.  Yet  Tre- 
gelles  and  the  revisers  omit  it. 

The  important  omission  in  Acts  ix.  6  has  its 
main  support  in  the  Egyptian  uncials ;  as  the 
Alexandrine,  Vatican,  Sinaitic  and  Ephr^eem  ; 
and  the  Syriac  Peschito.  It  is  found  in  the 
"common"  Greek  text,  in  the  cursives  gener- 
ally, in  31  before  correction,  in  the  Latin  Vul- 
gate, etc.  Here  Tregelles  quotes  Griesbach,  in- 
dicating the  leader  in  the  school  of  modern  ad- 
vocates for  the  Egyptian  uncials.  Tregelles 
and  the  English  revisers  omit  the  passage. 


74 


NEW  TESTAMENT  GREEK  TEXT. 


THE     THREE     EXTENDED     PASSAGES     OMITTED 
FROM  JOHN'S   GOSPEL  AND   FIRST  EPISTLE. 

As  already  indicated,  while  six  of  the  ten 
omitted  passages  are  from  Matthew's  Gospel 
and  two  from  Mark's  Gospel,  the  most  impor- 
tant of  all  are  from  the  Gospel  and  principal 
epistle  of  John.  The  contrast  between  these 
eleven  omissions  and  the  three  in  Luke's  writ- 
ings has  a  cause.  A  peculiar  significance  is 
here  suggested  as  to  the  statements  of  Hug 
that  the  early  variations  of  manuscripts,  noted 
in  Origen's  replies  to  Marcion  and  his  followers, 
arose  in  part  from  philosophic  objections  to  the 
Divinity  of  Christ,  and  in  part  from  an  effort  to 
harmonize  the  Gospels ;  especially  to  conform 
Matthew's  Gospel  to  Luke.  The  student  of 
Tregelles  will  perceive  in  the  application  of  his 
rules  to  Matt.  vi.  13  as  compared  with  Luke  xi. 
4,  and  again  of  Matt,  xxiii.  14  with  Luke  xx. 
47,  the  influence  of  this  doubtful  principle  of 
harmonizing  other  Gospels  with  Luke ;  an  idea 
urged  by  Marcion  in  the  second  century.  In 
each  of  the  three  omissions,  found  in  John's 
writings,  the  ruling  spirit  of  Alexandria  in  the 
fourth  century,  when  these  copies  'were  made, 
as  it  has  been  apparent  to  both  Roman  and 
Protestant  Bible  students  amid  all  their  disa- 
greements since  the  Reformation — the  Alexan- 


OMISSIO.VS  IN  JOHN'S  GOSPEL.  75 

drine  controversies  as  to  the  supernatural  in 
Christ's  person  and  work  must  be  kept  in 
mind. 

John  V.  4  is  the  first  of  these  omissions.  'It 
is  omitted  by  the  Sinaitic  and  Vatican  manu- 
scripts, by  the  older  Parisian  before  correction, 
by  the  Cambridge,  D,  and  by  cursive  33.  It  is 
retained  in  the  Alexandrine  uncial,  in  the  cor- 
rected older  and  in  the  later  Parisian,  in  the 
Tischendorff  fragments,  in  all  the  cursives  ex- 
cept 33,  in  the  Syriac  Peschito,  in  Jerome  and 
in  the  Latin  Vulgate.  Yet  it  is  omitted  by 
Tregelles  and  by  the  Canterbury  revisers. 

John  vii.  53  to  viii.  11  is  the  second  and  most 
extended  omission  from  John's  Gospel.  It  is 
omitted  by  the  Sinaitic,  the  Alexandrine,  the 
Vatican,  the  older  Parisian,  and  four  later  un- 
cials, and  by  cursive  33  ;  but  in  the  Alexan- 
drine and  older  Parisian  and  two  of  the  later 
uncials,  that  is  in  half  of  the  uncials  which  omit 
the  passage,  there  is  a  blank  space  indicating 
that  something  is  omitted;  the  text  being 
erased  or  its  copying  deferred.  It  is  found  in 
the  Cambridge,  D,  and  other  uncials,  in  the 
cursives  generally,  in  the  Latin  Vulgate,  as  it 
is  in  the  "koine  ekdosis  "  of  the  Greek  Church  ; 
while  Greek  and  Latin  fathers,  cited  by  Poole 
and  Tregelles,  refer  to  the  omitted  narrative 
as  found   in   John's  Gospel.     It   is   omitted  as 


^6  NEW  TESTAMENT  GREEK  TEXT. 

spurious  by  Tregelles ;  and  It  is  put  in  brackets 
as  doubtful  by  the  English  revisers. 

I  John  V.  7  is  the  most  disputed  of  the  omis- 
sions of  the  uncials  and  of  the  new  English  re- 
vision. The  passage  is  omitted  in  the  Alexan- 
drine, Vatican  and  Sinaitic  uncials ;  from  two 
later  uncials,  K  and  L;  from  some  cursive  man- 
uscripts ;  from  the  Syriac  Peschito  and  some 
other  Oriental  versions ;  as  also  from  some  of 
the  early  Latin  versions.  It  is  found  in  most 
of  the  cursive  manuscripts,  in  the  ''  koine  ekdo- 
sis"  as  preserved  by  the  modern  Greek  Church; 
in  the  Latin  Vulgate ;  and  in  all  the  Protestant 
and  Roman  Catholic  versions  called  out  at  the  era 
of  the  Reformation.  Several  of  the  Greek  and 
Latin  fathers  before  Constantine's  day,  cited  by 
Tregelles,  quote  the  passage  with  more  or  less 
distinctness. 

Since  this  latter  passage  was  brought  into  dis- 
pute before  the  translations  by  Protestant  Re- 
formers were  made,  it  is  fitting  that  the  argu- 
ment of  Poole  should  be  cited  in  brief.  The 
survey  may  indicate  that  the  revisers  of  that 
earlier  day  had  in  possession  authorities  more 
complete,  as  Poole's  statement  shows,  than 
many  scholars  of  the  present  day  have  sup- 
posed. Poole  presents  first  the  evidence  cited 
against  the  passage,  thus :  "  This  verse  neither 
the  Syrian  nor  the  ancient   Latin    interpreters 


OMISSION  IN  JOHN'S  EPISTLE.  yy 

nor  many  Greek  codices,  read  ;  nor  many  of  the 
ancients,  as  Nazianzen,  Athanasius,  Didymus, 
Chrysostom,  Cyril,  Hilary,  Augustine,  and  Beda; 
who,  since  they  were  writing  against  the  Arians, 
would  not  have  omitted  this  passage  if  they  had 
believed  it  to  be  genuine.  Also  the  Council  of 
Nice,  when  it  proved  the  Trinity  against  Arius 
from  John  x.  30  and  i  John  v.  6,  yet  omitted 
this  verse  7,  which  is  most  in  point.  Either 
they  did  not  read  it,  or  they  passed  it  as  sus- 
pected and  of  doubtful  reliableness."  In  reply- 
ing to  this  argument,  Poole  presents  these  facts : 
*'  The  most  ancient  and  approved  copies  (exem- 
plaria)  read  it";  meaning  by  "exemplaria" 
doubtless  the  accepted  cursives.  He  proceeds, 
stating  among  these  exemplars :  (i)  ''  All  the 
Greek  codices  in  the  time  of  Jerome,  he  attest- 
ing this  in  prolog.  Epist.  Canon  ad  Eustochi- 
um."  (2)  The  "codex  Britannicus  "  ;  whose  au- 
thority led  Erasmus  to  restore  it  in  succeeding, 
though  omitted  in  former  editions.  (3)  The 
'*  codices  which  the  authors  of  the  Complu- 
tensian  edition  used  A.D.  15 17."  (4)  "The  cod- 
ices of  Laurentius  Valla."  (5)  "  The  codices  of 
Robert  Stephens,"  most  of  which  had  it.  Poole 
then  cites  the  fathers  who  quote  the  passage  ; 
among  whom  are  Cyprian,  "who  wrote  before 
Arius  was  born,  in  the  third  century  "  ;  Tertul- 
lian  contra  Praxeam  ;  Athanasius  ad  Theop.  on 


78 


NEIV  TESTAMENT  GREEK  TEXT. 


the  ''  united  deity  of  the  Trinity,  Hb.  I.  " ;  to 
which  list  Poole  adds  several  later  fathers,  in- 
cluding Jerome.  He  adds:  ''These  words 
could  have  been  omitted  by  oversight,  through 
a  mistake  of  the  copyist;  whose  eye,  when  he 
had  transcribed  the  passage  up  to  these  words, 
'there  are  three  that  bear  record,* — whose  eye, 
wandering,  might  have  passed  over  to  v.  8, 
where  the  same  words  are  repeated ;  and  so 
from  want  of  care  he  might  have  passed  beyond 
this  verse.  Yet  more,  as  to  the  question 
whether  this  verse  was  taken  out  by  the  Ari- 
ans  or  added  by  the  Orthodox,  the  latter  is 
much  more  probable."  In  a  long  argument  he 
sustains  this  latter  proposition  ;  the  main  points 
of  evidence  being  these.  First,  to  omit  implies 
only  excusable  oversight,  while  to  insert  implies 
designed  deceit  and  direct  invention  of  a  human 
statement  as  God's  word.  Second,  the  opposers 
of  the  doctrine  had  more  reason  for  omission 
than  its  upholders  for  addition,  since  enough 
other  texts  remained  to  support  their  view. 
Third,  the  opposers,  regarding  the  New  Testa- 
ment as  only  human,  did  not  feel  the  motive  to 
fidelity  which  inspired  believers  in  the  Divine 
authority  of  the  Scriptures ;  and  hence  they 
did  change  the  text,  as  is  attested  by  Ambrose 
De  fide  5,  7  and  De  Spiritu  Sancto ;  also  in 
Socrates   Hist.   Eccl.  vii.  32  and  Tripart.  xii.  4. 


VARIA  TIOiVS  IN  THE   UNCIALS.  yg 

Fourth,  the  poHtical  power,  under  Constantius 
and  Valens,  gave  popularity  to  the  text  which 
favored  Arianism.  This  lengthy  statement  of 
Poole,  founded  on  testimonies  to  which  the  re- 
searches of  Tregelles  have  added  little  and  from 
which  much  has  been  omitted,  call  for  a  careful 
consideration  of  the  real  claims  of  this  most  dis- 
puted passage  to  still  continued  confidence. 

As  one  among  many  general  testimonies 
which  sustain  the  '''  common  text  "  in  retaining 
all  the  fourteen  passages  above  considered,  Rev. 
Garabed  Kaprielian,  for  several  years  a  native 
pastor  near  Constantinople,  states :  that  the  an- 
cient Armenian  version,  used  now  by  the  Cath- 
olic Armenian  people,  omits  only  the  two  cited 
in  Mark's  Gospel ;  while  the  modern  version  has 
restored  those  two  passages. 


THE    COUNTLESS  VARIATIONS    OF  THE    THREE 
LEADING   UNCIALS. 

The  most  superficial  reader  of  Tischendorff 's 
edition  of  King  James'  version  will  observe  that 
at  the  bottom  of  every  page  there  are  generally 
noted  a  score  or  more  of  variations  from  the  re- 
ceived text  found  in  one  or  more  of  the  three 
leading  uncials,  the  Sinaitic,  the  Vatican  and 
the  Alexandrine.     Choosing  his  own  mode  of 


8o  JVEPV  TESTAMENT  GREEK  TEXT. 

indicating  these  manuscripts,  since  the  old  des- 
ignation controlled  by  English  scholars  gave  no 
place  in  the  English  alphabet  for  his  newly  dis- 
covered manuscript,  Tischendorff  reverses  the 
order  of  Tregelles,  making  his  own  first  in  au- 
thority and  the  Alexandrine  last ;  indicating 
always  the  agreement  of' these  three  most  com- 
plete as  well  as  most  ancient  uncials  by  the  first 
letters  of  their  names ;  writing  S.  V.  A.  where 
they  are  all  agreed. 

As  a  sample  of  these  numberless  variations, 
and  of  the  disagreements  of  the  three  among 
themselves,  the  following  illustrations  may  be 
traced  and  weighed.  Passing  by  the  Gospel  of 
Matthew,  where  because  of  the  loss  of  the  Al- 
exandrine only  two  can  be  compared,  and 
where  as  we  have  observed  six  out  of  ten  omit- 
ted verses  occur,  these  may  be  noted.  In  John, 
1st  chap.,  there  are  ten  clauses  omitted  ;  in  the 
6th  chap,  seventeen.  In  Acts,  ist  to  loth 
chaps.,  there  are  i8o  variations;  of  which  105 
are  marked  S.  V.  A.  ;  while,  of  the  remaining 
75,  all  arc  marked  S,  40  are  marked  V,  and  55 
A.  In  John's  ist  Epistle  58  variations  are 
found  in  the^inaitic,  45  are  found  in  the  Vati- 
can, 56  in  the  Alexandrine  ;  while  the  varia- 
tions in  which  the  three  agree  are  but  19  in 
number,  including  the  disputed  passage  ist 
John   V.  7.      It  would   be   hard   to   conceive  a 


TISCHENDORFF'S  ADMITTED  ERRORS.     8 1 

stronger  testimony  that  these  Egyptian-copied 
Greek  manuscripts  are  utterly  unreHable  as  au- 
thority in  deciding  on  the  true  Greek  text. 

Yet  more ;  nearly  all  these  variations  are 
omissions.  There  are  a  few  variations  in  the 
form  of  words  ;  as  in  that  cited  by  the  Bishop 
of  St.  Andrews  where  in  Luke  ii.  14  "  eudo- 
kias,"  the  genitive,  is  used  for  '^  eudokia,"  the 
nominative ;  making  the  angels'  chant  to  be 
''  peace  on  earth  to  men  of  good  will,"  instead  of 
''peace  on  earth,  good  will  to  men."  The  addi- 
tians,  on  the  other  hand,  are  so  few  that  pages 
may  be  scanned  before  one  is  met ;  and  then  it 
is  of  a  kind  that  implies  carelessness  rather  than 
designed  invention.  The  most  marked  testi- 
mony, supporting  Poole's  view  as  to  the  prior 
judgment  that  additions  have  not  been  made  in 
the  conunon  text,  but  that  omissions  have  oc- 
curred in  the  uncial  manuscripts,  is  Tischen- 
dorff's  own  ingenuous  admission.  Thus  on 
Acts  xxiii.  16,  where  the  Alexandrine  has 
"  synagogue  "  for  ''  castle,"  Tischendorff  writes  : 
"a  mere  error."  Again,  on  Acts  xxvii.  37, 
where  the  Vatican  has  "two  hundred"  only, 
and  the  Alexandrine  has  "  two  hundred  and 
fifteen,"  while  the  Sinaitic,  his  own,  has  "  two 
hundred  and  sixteen,"  in  accord  with  the  com- 
mon text,  Tischendorff  writes  :  *'  a  mere  error." 
So  in  1st  John,  5th  chap.,  all  studded  with  va- 
6 


82  NEW  TESTAMENT  GREEK  TEXT. 

nations  in  Tischendorff's  margin,  the  Alexan- 
drine omits  the  entire  clause  I  John  v.  15  • 
''And  if  we  know  that  he  hear  us"  ;  on  which 
TischendorfT,  all  unconscious  of  its  bearing  on 
the  omission  of  the  7th  verse  just  above,  writes  : 
"a  mere  error."  Chiefly,  however,  in  the  text 
of  the  Revelation  his  admissions  as  to  errors  of 
the  three  leading  uncials  are  perfectly  destruc- 
tive of  their  reliableness  as  authority.  Thus  at 
Rev.  iii.  15,  where  A.  omits  the  clause:  ''J 
would  thou  wert  cold  or  hot,"  he  writes :  "  a 
mere  error."  Again  at  v.  4  his  note  is:  "A. 
omits  this  verse:  a  mere  error."  Again  at  vi. 
8,  in  which  vicinity  the  cited  variations  ar*.  like 
the  "  hail-stones,"  there  referred  to,  in  number, 
Tischendorff  notes  as  follows  one  of  the  rare  ad- 
ditions of  the  uncials:  '' A.  was  called  Immor- 
tal ;  an  error."  Again  at  xiii.  7  is  the  note : 
''A.  omits,  'And  it  was  given  ....  to  over- 
come them  * ;  an  errors  Having  thus  found 
the  Alexandrine  manuscript,  most  trusted  by 
Tregelles,  so  unreliable,  Tischendorff  comes  to 
a  portion  of  the  Revelation  where  his  own  man- 
uscript must,  for  consistency's  sake,  be  made  to 
suffer  lack  of  authority  more  than  the  Alexan- 
drine. On  Rev.  xviii.  21  he  has  the  note:  "A. 
An  angel  took  up ;  S.  And  an  angel  took  up 
a  mighty  stone  like  a  great  stone ;  an  error'' 
Again  at   xix.  2  comes   the   note :    "  A,   which 


TREGELLES'  INCOMPLETE   WORK.  83 

judged  ;  a  mere  error T  Finally,  as  if  the  woe 
on  the  one  "  adding "  or  ''  taking  away,"  re- 
corded Rev.  xxii.  18,  19,  began  to  rise  to  view 
and  to  denounce  these  manuscripts,  the  work 
of  inexperienced  Egyptians,  as  coming  under 
its  malediction,  Tischendorff  ingenuously,  if  not 
reverently,  makes  this  note,  as  to  a  whole  verse 
omitted  from  his  admired  manuscript :  Rev. 
XX.  5  :  ''  S.  omits  But  the  rest  ....  were  fin- 
ished ;  a  inere  error T  It  is  almost  incompre- 
hensible, when  on  almost  every  chapter  Tisch- 
endorff has  noted  a  score  or  more  of  like  varia- 
tions and  omissions  in  the  three  trusted  uncials, 
that  their  real  character  had  not  dawned  on  his 
mind.  Nothing  but  the  utter  blindness  that 
takes  possession  of  ambitious  explorers  in  the 
fields  of  science,  so  often  unveiled  in  the  French 
Academy  by  Humboldt  and  Cuvier,  and  in  the 
American  Academy  by  Henry  and  Agassiz,  can 
account  for  the  ingenuous  frankness  and  the  un- 
conscious inconsistency  of  the  Sinaitic  explorer. 


INEQUALITIES   AND   IMPERFECTIONS   IN   THE 
WORK   OF  TREGELLES. 

The  labor  of  exhaustive  collation  attempted 
by  Tregelles  was  exhausting,  and  necessarily  so, 
to   its   author.       Many  portions   of   his   work 


84  NEW  TESTAMENT  OREEK  TEXT. 

show  that  his  collation  was  left  incomplete,  and 
his  judgment  therefore  immature.  At  some 
points,  as  the  works  of  Poole  and  of  Hug 
attest,  the  research  of  Tregelles  fell  behind  that 
of  his  predecessors,  as  also  behind  that  of 
Tischendorff,  his  co-laborer;  certain  portions 
of  whose  conclusions  Tregelles  approved,  while 
much  of  his  labor  he  appropriated.  While 
many  passages  illustrate  these  facts  as  to  the 
work  of  Tregelles,  a  single  example  must 
suffice  for  illustration. 

In  I  Cor.  xi.  24,  the  word  '^  klomenon," 
broken,  is  omitted  by  Tregelles,  and  by  the 
Canterbury  revisers.  The  authorities  cited  by 
Tregelles  are  as  follows :  The  Alexandrine 
and  Vatican,  also  the  Sinaitic  and  early  Pa- 
risian before  correction,  among  uncial  manu- 
scripts, also,  one  cursive  manuscript,  17,  with 
one  Armenian  version,  omit  the  passage.  It  is 
found  in  the  common  text,  the  *'  koine  ekdosis" 
of  the  ancient  and  modern  Greeks.  It  was 
restored  in  the  uncials  cited  by  early  .Greek 
revisers  in  two  cases  ;  by  the  third  of  ten  succes- 
sive correctors  of  the  Sinaitic,  and  by  the  third 
corrector  of  the  early  Parisian.  It  is  restored  and 
made  emphatic  by  the  term  '' thruptomenon," 
crushed,  inserted  b}'  the  second  Greek  corrector 
in  the  manuscript  of  Paul's  epistles,  marked  D, 
because,  as  we  have  seen,  it  was,  for  a  time, 


OMISSION  IN  I   COR.  xi.  24.  85 

supposed  to  be  the  continuation  of  the  manu- 
script of  the  Gospel  and  Acts,  also  marked  D, 
in  the  Cambridge  Library  ;  a  manuscript  fully 
described  by  Hug,  and  briefly  mentioned  by 
Tregelles,  and  a  manuscript  now  well  known  for 
centuries  in  the  Royal  Library  of  Paris.  It  is 
found,  also,  in  the  following  later  uncials :  in  F, 
in  Trinity  College,  Oxford  ;  in  G,  in  the  Dres- 
den Library  ;  in  both  K  and  L  in  the  Library  of 
Paris;  in  the  important  cursives,  No.  37  and 
47  ;  in  the  two  Syriac  versions,  the  Peschito  and 
Harclean  ;  and  in  the  Gothic  and  one  Armenian. 
Jerome  found  it,  as  he  did  other  passages, 
omitted  in  the  uncials  made  in  Egypt  just 
before  his  thirty  years  spent  in  Palestine  ;  and, 
restoring  it,  he  rendered  it  "  tradetur,"  shall  be 
delivered.  The  Latin  Vulgate  retains  it,  and 
renders  it  ''  traditur,"  is  delivered  ;  not  "  trade- 
tur," as  by  oversight  or  misprint  it  appears  in 
Tregelles.  The  Arabic,  never  cited  by  Tre- 
gelles, prepared,  as  Hug  shows,  from  the  Greek, 
but  with  Latin  and  other  versions  guiding  the 
translator,  has  '^  tekeser " ;  a  verb  which  in 
meani7tg  sho^s  that  the  Greek  term  ^'  klomenon  " 
was  the  translator's  guide  ;  while  itsfor?n  throws 
light  on  the  two  forms  "  tradetur"  and  "  tradi- 
tur" in  the  Latin.  The  Arabic  verb, '' keser," 
the  third  person  singular  of  the  preterit,  is 
rendered    by    Freytag   in.   Latin,    "  fregit,"    he 


86  NE  W  TESTAMENT  GREEK  TEXT. 

broke ;  while  by  French  lexicographers,  now  in 
Algiers,  it  is  rendered  by  the  familiar  term 
'' casser."  The  augmented  tense,  "  tekeser," 
called  in  Hebrew  and  the  cognate  Arabic 
either  ''future  "or  "present,"  represents,  like 
the  Greek  aorist,  the  act  unlimited  as  to  time ; 
though  while  the  Greek  aorist  represents  the 
act  as  past^  the  Hebrew  and  Arabic  repre- 
sent the  time  as  incomplete,  though  the  act  may 
be  past,  present,  or  future,  according  to  the 
connection.  The  Greek  "  klomenon  "  admitted 
this  indistinctness  as  to  time ;  since  Jesus  in 
uttering  the  word  used  it  as  to  what  was  to 
occur  the  next  morning.  That  He  did  utter  the 
term  is  indicated  by  several  considerations. 
First,  Luke,  who  wrote  his  Gospel  as  Paul's 
companion,  and  with  the  Epistle  to  the  Corin- 
thians for  some  years  before  him  and  his  readers, 
represents  Christ  as  using  the  word  "  didomenon" 
(Luke  xxii.  19);  whose  correctness  no  authority 
has  ever  questioned,  though  it  is  omitted  in  one 
Syriac  version,  showing  that  omissions  crept  in 
that  were  unauthorized,  by  error  of  copyists. 
Luke's  statement  (xxii.  19)  is,  "And  taking 
the  bread  he  broke  it  (eklasen,  the  aorist 
tense),  and  gave  it  (edoken,  also  aorist)  to 
them,  saying,  this  is  my  body  given  (didomenon) 
for  you."  Luke  represents  Christ  as  drawing 
His  participle  from  the  second  verb,  "  didomi  "  ; 


REASONS  FOR  RETAINING  ''BROKENr      g/ 

but  Paul's  is  from  the  first  verb,  ''  klao."  Sec- 
ond, ih.& phrases  of  Luke  and  Paul,  "  to  soma  mou 
to  hyper  hymon," — the  body  of  me,  that  for 
you — are  precisely  the  same,  the  participle  only 
excepted.  If,  now,  Paul  did  not  add,  like 
Luke,  a  participle,  there  was  a  hiatus  unex- 
pected, an  omission  the  reader  must  supply  if 
the  zvriter  did  not.  Third,  the  "  koine  ekdosis," 
in  use  "  time  out  of  mind  "  among  the  Greeks, 
the  cursive  manuscripts  generally  which  guided 
the  Roman  and  Reformed  editors  at  the  Refor- 
mation, attest  that  the  word  belongs  to  the 
original  text ;  while  the  Greek  revisers  of  differ- 
ent ages,  better  judges  than  any  modern 
scholars  can  be,  inserted  the  word  in  the  Egyp- 
tian-made uncials,  regarded  by  all  Greeks,  in  all 
ages,  as  incorrect.  The  rejection  by  Tregelles, 
not  only  of  the  text  received  by  all  the  Greek 
guardians  of  the  New  Testament  given  in  their 
vernacular,  but  also  of  that  inserted  by  all  the 
successive  revisers  of  the  Egyptian  uncials  in 
ages  and  by  men  best  qualified  to  judge  of  their 
imperfections — the  fact  that  he  shrank  from 
following  Tischendorff  in  adhering  to  the  view 
that  these  manuscripts  because  very  old  were 
therefore  supreme  as  authority — yet  more,  the 
incompleteness  of  Tregelles'  research  as  to  this 
and  other  like  changes  made  in  the  Greek  text 
—all  these  facts,  as  the  Bishop  of  St.  Andrews 


88  NEW  TESTAMENT  GREEK  TEXT. 


intimates,  justified  the   Canterbury  revisers  in 
hesitating  to  follow  Tregell 
tated  to  follow  Tischendorff. 


hesitating  to  follow  Tregelles,  as  he  had  hesi 


GROUNDS   FOR  REVIEW  OF  THE   REVISERS* 
CHANGES   IN   THE   GREEK  TEXT. 

The  facts  thus  traced  as  to  changes  in  the 
Greek  text,  followed  by  the  revisers,  affect  but 
indirectly  the  changes  in  rendering  given  by 
them  to  the  great  body  of  the  New  Testament 
as  universally  received.  With  most  of  those 
changes  the  English-speaking  Christian  world 
has  felt  and  expressed  special  satisfaction.  It  is 
the  unexpected  change  made  in  the  Greek  text 
which  has  awakened  the  solicitude  even  of  the 
revisers  ;  more  than  one  of  whom  speaks  through 
the  Bishop  of  St.  Andrews.  As  a  matter  of 
translation  only  he  feels  the  utterly  changed 
aspect  of  the  petition  :  "  Deliver  us  from  the 
evil  one,"  i.  r.,  from  an  enemy  without^  as  com- 
pared with  the  deeper  conviction  which  prompts 
the  cry :  "  Deliver  us  from  evil^'  the  traitor 
within  ;  but  he  dwells  chiefly  on  the  implied  de- 
nial, indicated  by  its  omission  of  the  Divine  sanc- 
tion for  the  ascription  :  **  For  thine  is  the  king- 
dom, the  power  and  the  glory  forever "  ;  an 
ascription,  which,  in  the  prayers  of  Christian  wor- 


DOUBT  OF  A  LEADING  REVISER.  89 

shippers  in  every  portion  of  the  world,  has  from 
time  immemorial  been  made  a  part  of  "  the 
Lord's  prayer,"  Yet  again,  as  a  matter  only  of 
changed  translation  the  Bishop  of  St.  Andrews 
sees  a  doctrinal  lack  in  the  angels' song  when  it  is 
changed,  by  the  addition  of  a  single  letter  in  the 
Greek,  from  the  universal  promise,  "good  will  to 
men,"  and  made  to  assume  the  limited  pledge  to 
the  few  self-supposed  "  men  of  good  will."  It  is, 
however,  the  authority  found  in  any  "  real 
co7tsensus  of  scholars  "  for  the  change  in  the 
Greek  text,  that  the  good  Bishop  doubts.  And 
well  may  any  earnest  Christian  inquirer  thus 
hesitate ;  for,  these  are  the  stated  authorities. 
The  Alexandrine  uncial  in  this  passage,  the  Vati- 
can before  correction,  and  the  Latin  and  Gothic 
versions  add  "  s  "  to  the  Greek  word  "  eudokia  "  ; 
while  the  Alexandrine  in  its  added  "  Natal 
Hymn,"  the  Vatican  as  corrected  by  its  second 
native  Greek  revisers,  the  old  Syriac  and  the 
Oriental  versions  generally,  the  cursive  manu- 
scripts, the  Greek  "  koine  ekdosis  "  of  to-day, 
are  all  in  accord  with  the  versions  of  scholars  of 
the  Reformation.  To  this  testimony,  cited  by 
Tregelles,  Tischendorff  now  adds  :  that,  while  the 
Sinaitic  manuscript  originally  inserted  the  "s,"  it 
was  erased  by  an  early  Greek  reviser ;  the  whole 
phalanx  of  Greek  authorities  thus  sustaining 
the  integrity  of  the  received  Greek  text  and  de- 


go  NEW  TESTAMENT  GREEK  TEXT. 

daring  the  error  of  the  uncial  manuscripts,  as 
well  as  the  inconsistency  of  their  special  advo- 
cates. 

It  is  not  the  hesitancy  of  the  original  revisers, 
however,  that  constitutes  the  main  demand  for 
an  impartial  review  of  the  changes  proposed 
in  the  Greek  text  of  the  New  Testament.  These 
changes,  especially  the  omissions  from  the  re- 
ceived text,  have  led  to  the  extreme  of  sceptical 
objection.  The  class  of  ''  Liberal  Religionists," 
who  accept  only  the  teachings  of  natural  as  dis- 
tinct from  revealed  religion,  affirm :  "  The 
Catholics  rely  on  an  infallible  Church  as  the 
interpreter  of  revelation  ;  and  the  Protestants 
rely  on  an  infallible  text  as  the  revelation  to  be 
interpreted."  These  objections  cannot  be  met  in 
argument  if  the  Egyptian-made  uncial  manu- 
scripts— full  of  errors,  as  even  Tischendorff 
allows  and  rejected  as  unreliable  by  the  Greeks 
themselves — are  the  only  trustworthy  guides  to 
the  true  text.  Again,  the  large  class  of  '*  Liberal 
Christians,"  who  accept  the  Scriptures,  but  seek 
to  find  the  proofs  of  a  human  rather  than  of  a 
Divine  origin,  argue,  and  conclusively :  ^'  On 
the  same  grounds  that  the  Canterbury  revisers 
have  made  a  few  changes  in  the  text,  and 
Tregelles  more,  while  Tischendorff  consistently 
goes  to  the  extreme  of  all  the  omissions  and  vari- 
ations found  in  the  Egyptian  uncials, — on  these 


RE  A  SONS  FOR  THE  RE  VISER'S  DO  UBT.      91 

same  grounds  the  whole  fabric  of  the  claim  to 
an  infallible  text  is  made  to  be  a  fallacy ;  and 
o7ir  claim  is  established  that  the  book  is  human 
and  its  text  and  its  interpretation  are  to  be  ac- 
cepted only  as  each  man's  individual  reason 
makes  it  truth  for  himself." 

Here  the  hesitating  admission  of  the  Bishop 
of  St.  Andrews  as  to  his  own  reasons  for  yield- 
ing to  changes  which  Christian  judgment  re- 
jected, demand  again  a  most  careful  considera- 
tion. In  his  charge  to  his  diocese  the  Bishop 
thus  writes.  After  declaring :  "  the  more  I  saw 
of  the  work  the  more  it  appeared  to  me  that  we 
were  going  beyond  the  purpose  for  which  we 
were  appointed,"  and  again  stating  as  he  refers 
to  the  omissions  above  cited  :  ^'  I  did  the  best 
I  could  to  resist  alterations  of  the  authorized 
version  such  as  these,"  the  Bishop  adds  :  **  So 
far  as  I  could  judge  I  was  unable  to  discover  in 
either  case  any  real  necessity  of  faithfulness  to 
justify,  or  any  actual  consensus  of  scholars  to  de- 
mand the  changes  that  have  been  made."  It  is 
this  latter  fact,  apparent  to  the  Bishop  as  one 
of  the  original  Board  of  revisers,  which  has 
been  brought  to  view  in  the  history  above 
traced.  There  is  no  ''  actual  consensus  "  of 
scholars  in  any  age  or  branch  of  the  Christian 
Church  that  has  justified  these  changes.  As 
the  manuscripts  themselves    attest,  the  Greek 


Q2  .VEfV  TESTAMENT  GREEK  TEXT. 

Church,  in  whose  language  they  were  written, 
were  either  indifferent  to  the  Egyptian  uncials 
as  superannuated,  or  they  sought  to  correct  in 
them  errors  which  to  their  superior  judgment 
were  palpable ;  thus  making  them  conform  to 
the  ''  koine  ekdosis."  Yet  more ;  the  most  in- 
tellisfent  and  conscientious  scholars  of  both  the 
Eastern  and  Western  Churches  never  regarded 
them  of  any  value  except  as  collateral  testimony 
to  the  ''  textus  receptus  "  ;  with  which  in  the 
main  they  accord.  Still  yet  more ;  no  class  of 
scholars  has  ever  proposed  that  the  "  common 
text "  should  be  set  aside  ;  for  even  Tregelles 
would  only  have  that  text  modified  when  all 
the  leading  Egyptian  uncials  are  found  to  vary 
from  it.  The  mere  individual  aspirants  for  per- 
sonal originality  in  philological  research,  so  fitly 
characterized  by  Hug,  have  proved  that  they 
are  but  mutually-conflicting  and  reciprocally- 
destructive  critics.  The  inquiry,  therefore,  is 
not  only  legitimate,  but  imperative :  ''  What  has 
given  origin  and  growing  prevalence  to  this 
new,  this  unprecedented,  this  inconsistent  and 
this  self-destructive  devotion  to  the  Egyptian 
uncials  ?  "  To  refer  it  mainly  to  blind  enthusi- 
asm for  mere  antiquity,  to  suppose  that  antiq- 
uity has  been  mistaken  for  authority,  though 
this  is  really  the  character  of  these  manuscripts, 
as  their  former  possessors  have  attested,  does 


AUTHORITY  OF  GREEK  CHURCH. 


93 


not    cover    the    crround    of    actual   misleadinr 

o  < 

causes. 


GENERAL  REASONS   FOR  UNDUE   TRUST  IN 
THE   UNCIAL   MANUSCRIPTS. 

There  are  general  causes  for  the  fact  that  the 
Egyptian  copies  of  the  New  Testament,  so  nu- 
merously made  during  the  century  which  fol- 
lowed the  accession  of  Constantine,  should  have 
been  unduly  estimated  by  European  scholars ; 
who,  in  comparatively  modern  days,  have  first 
met  with  the  manuscripts  which  after  a  thou- 
sand years  of  possession  had  ceased  to  be  of  any 
practical  value  to  their  Greek  possessors. 

First,  there  is  a  natural  admiration  for  archae- 
ological rehcs ;  most  worthy  when  confined  to 
its  proper  limit.  But,  as  one  of  the  early  re- 
prints of  Tyndale's,  or  even  of  King  James', 
version,  made  by  English  or  American  printers 
in  the  early  haste  after  the  Revolutions  under 
Charles  I.  and  George  III.,  are  now  prized  as 
museum-rehcs,  though  untrustworthy  as  author- 
ity, so  a  discriminating  judgment  must  decide 
as  to  the  prized  uncial  manuscripts  of  the  New 
Testament. 

Second,  the  authority  of  the  Greek  revisers  of 
those  manuscripts  has  naturally  been  under- 
valued.    There  is  a  national  pride,  truly  patri- 


g4  NEW  TESTAMENT  GREEK  TEXT. 

otic,  that  places  a  high  estimate  on  national 
prominence  in  power ;  and  which  by  tJiis  stand- 
ard estimates  the  treasures  of  other  nations  ac- 
cording to  their  present  pohtical  eminence. 
The  treasures,  however,  of  early  Greek  Chris- 
tian scholarship  are  coming  to  be  more  and 
more  prized  by  German  theologians  like  Dorner 
and  Ritschl ;  and  the  faith  of  the  Greek  Church, 
more  primitive  than  that  of  the  Roman  Church, 
is  finding  constantly  a  larger  place  in  German 
writers  on  Ecclesiastical  History.  The  unwa- 
vering confidence  of  the  unbroken  line  of  Greek 
Christian  scholars  in  the  integrity  of  the  ''  com- 
mon text "  of  the  original  New  Testament, 
their  vernacular, — embodied  for  ten  centuries 
in  their  corrections  of  the  Egyptian  uncials, — 
is  one  of  the  characteristics  of  modern  research. 
This  was  specially  illustrated  in  Professor,  after- 
wards President,  Felton  of  Harvard  University. 
When  studied  at  a  distance,  the  modern  Greek 
people  seemed  to  his  view  to  have  no  claim  to 
authority  as  guardians  of  the  literature  of  their 
noble  ancestry.  When  afterwards  studied  for  a 
few  weeks  at  Athens,  in  their  Court  and  their 
University,  and  amid  their  classic  surroundings, 
the  modern  Greeks  seemed  in  themselves  to  be 
worthy  of  their  inheritance  and  of  a  voice  as^in- 
terpreters  of  the  ancient  classics. 

Third,  the  claim  of  the  Oriental  Church  has 


AUTHORITY  OF  ORIENTAL  CHURCHES.      95 

long  been  overlooked :  that  of  the  Armenians 
of  ancient  Eden  and  Ararat ;  that  of  the  Nes- 
torians  whose  line  is  traced  to  the  apostle 
Thomas ;  that  of  the  Syrian  Christians  who 
justly  claim  direct  lineage  with  the  disciples  of 
Jesus'  day,  and  whose  were  the  ''  Palestinian 
codices"  cited  by  Hug;  that  of  the  Copts  of 
Egypt  who  go  back  in  their  claim,  past  Clement 
and  Origen,  to  Mark  the  evangelist ;  and  lastly 
that  of  the  Abyssinian  Church,  who  speak  still, 
as  Bishop  Gobat  states,  of  their  relation  to  the 
treasurer  of  Queen  Candace.  All  these,  be- 
cause of  their  political  subordination  for  ages, 
have  been  lost  from  view  as  having  no  voice  of 
historic  authority.  But  Chateaubriand,  Lamar- 
tine  and  even  Renan  of  France  have  succes- 
sively caught  the  new  spirit  inspired  amid  the 
scenes  of  Jesus'  life.  D'Israeli,  in  his  "  Lothair," 
recognized  its  legitimate  sway  when  he  made 
his  young  hero,  sighing  for  the  earlier  tradition, 
fail  to  find  satisfaction  at  Rome;  while  he 
seemed  to  breathe  a  purer  atmosphere  as  in 
Syria  he  roamed  and  communed  with  a  Chris- 
tian of  the  Eastern  Church,  and  as,  with  him, 
he  went  back,  past  mediaeval  traditions,  rituals 
and  decrees,  to  the  words  of  Jesus,  read  on  the 
soil  hallowed  by  His  footsteps  and  studied  amid 
the  scenes  yet  vocal  with  His  utterances.  The 
decadence   of    the   military   power   which    has 


q6        new  testament  greek  text. 

made  the  people  of  Western  Asia  seem,  but 
only  seem,  to  have  accepted  the  Mohammedan 
faith,  will  bring  a  new  people  into  the  alHance 
of  Christendom ;  whose  line  of  guardians  of 
the-  New'  Testament  will  be  seen  to  have  a 
higher  honor  than  the  Jewish  Church;  whose 
fidelity  in  preserving  the  integrity  of  the  text  ot 
the  Old  Testament,  the  earlier  "  lively  oracles,' 
drew  forth  the  sincere  commendation  of  Paul, 
though  he  went  beyond  his  countrymen  in  ac- 
cepting the  "  new  covenant  "  ;  a  covenant  which 
its  author  will  not  permit  the  negligence  of  care- 
less and  indifferent  transcribers  to  "annul"  by. 
omissions,  or  to  overlay  with  additions.  Yet 
more ;  the  Coptic  convents  on  the  Nile,  de- 
scribed by  Lane  and  Sir  Gardner  Wilkinson, 
and  visited  by  occasional  Western  scholars, 
whose  libraries  are  carefully  locked  through  fear 
of  plunder  under  the  name  of  research,  may  yet 
be  entered ;  and  Christian  grace,  though  not 
Christian  gold,  may  yet  unlock  those  libraries 
and  reveal  rare  copies  of  the  Greek  New  Testa- 
ment. Then  the  originals  from  which  Greek 
scholars  of  ten  centuries  have  corrected  the 
Egyptian  uncials — the  originals  may  perhaps  be 
found. 

Fourth,  bondage  to  ecclesiastical  precedents, 
seen  even  in  Hug,  has  doubtless  been  a  cause  of 
error   as  to    the    Egyptian    uncials.       Nothing 


AUTHORITY  IN  THE  ROMAN  CHURCH,     gy 

could  be  more  significant  than  Hug's  statement 
as  to  the  Latin  Vulgate  ;  that  it  is  authority 
"  in  discipline^'  but  is  not  supreme  in  doctrine. 
Nothing  could  be  more  emphatic  and  full  than 
his  classification  of  the  leading  Egyptian  un- 
cials ;  which,  as  he  declares,  follow  the  text  of 
"the  Hesychian  recension,"  known  to  have 
been  controlled  by  the  teachings  of  Marcion. 
Nothing,  therefore,  to  the  impartial  scholar, 
could  be  more  significant  than  this,  his  own 
statement,  after  having  accorded  superior  au- 
thority to  the  Palestine,  as  compared  with  the 
Egyptian  manuscripts:  "The  manuscripts  of 
the  koine  ckdosis  in  Syria  contained,  notwith- 
standing, several  important  readings  which  we 
seek  in  vain  in  the  Egyptian  manuscripts " ; 
and  then  he  cites  Matt.  vi.  13;  Matt.  xx.  22  ; 
Mark  vi.  13;  Mark  xiii.  14;  Luke  iv.  18;  the 
very  passages  which  we  have  seen  to  be  omit- 
ted from  the  Latin  Vulgate.  That  such  a 
scholar  as  Hug  could  find  no  other  authority 
than  the  Egyptian  uncials,  whose  integrity  he 
had  before  in  every  respect  disproved, — that 
Hug  found  no  other  resort  than  these  rejected 
manuscripts  for  these  omissions  is  proof  de- 
monstrative that  they  do  not  err  who  on  Hug's 
own  statement  deny  the  authority  of  the  Latin 
Vulgate,  when  on  such  grounds  it  departs  from 
the  common  text. 
7 


gS  NEW  TESTAMENT  GREEK  TEXT. 

Fifth,  the  adoption  of  the  rule,  opposed  by 
Bacon,  that  "  individual  opinion  "  as  opposed  to 
''  uniform  historic  testimony,"  began  the  lean- 
ing to  the  authority  of  the  Egyptian  uncials 
which  has  now  culminated.  Dr.  Edward  Rob- 
inson, in  his  edition  of  Hahn's  Greek  New  Tes- 
tament, published  at  New  York  in  1842,  thus 
states  this  rule  of  criticism  :  "  Lozver  criticism 
occupies  itself  only  with  external  evidence  ;  and 
employs  it  to  distinguish  between  what  is  genu- 
ine and  what  is  spurious  and  corrupt,  whether 
in  respect  to  a  whole  book  or  a  collection  of 
books,  or  also  to  a  single  passage  or  word. 
Higher  criticism,  on  the  contrary,  rests  only  on 
the  internal  evidence  ;  and  determines  either  a 
whole  book,  or  single  passages  to  be  genuine  or 
not,  according  as  they  agree  or  disagree  with 
the  character  or  style  of  the  writer  to  whom, 
and  with  the  genius  and  history  of  the  time  to 
which,  they  are  ascribed."  That  expression 
"  rests  only  on  the  internal  evidence  "  is  calcu- 
lated to  awaken  thought.  As  applied  to  Gre- 
cian and  Roman  historians  and  poets,  to  Ho- 
mer and  Herodotus,  to  Virgil,  Livy  and  Pliny, 
this  rule,  adopted  more  than  a  century  ago  in 
Germany,  like  much  of. German  philosophy,  has 
been  ''weighed  in  the  balance"  of  practical 
judgment  and  has  been  ''  found  wanting."  It 
is  nothing  else  than  the  statement  that  a  single 


AUTHORITY  OF  HISTORIC  TESTIMONIES,   gg 

modern  student,  in  the  seclusion  of  his  study, 
has  better  means  of  judging  of  the  "  character 
and  style  "  of  an  ancient  writer  and  of  compre- 
hending the  "  genius  and  history  of  their  times  " 
than  had  all  the  contemporaries  and  immediate 
successors  of  the  writer  criticised.  Discoveries 
of  imperfections  in  the  text  of  the  Hebrew  and 
Greek  Scriptures  and  of  the  Greek  and  Latin 
classic  authors,  which  escaped  the  ken  of  their 
contemporaries  and  of  generations  of  native 
scholars  for  ages  since,  have  somehow  been  re- 
vealed to  a  speculative  critic  in  the  i8th  and 
19th  centuries  !  Surely  this  savors  of  the  self- 
idolatry  indicated  in  the  ''  idola  tribus,  specus, 
fori  et  theatri,"  which  Bacon  hunted  down  to 
their  secret  shrines.  It  certainly  comes  under 
Hug's  just  condemnation  above  quoted. 

And  the  result  proves  Hug  to  have  spoken 
not  simply  from  conviction  as  to  principle,  but 
also  from  experience  as  to  the  fact.  The  four 
editors  who  followed  the  rule  above  cited  are 
Griesbach,  Knapp,  Lachmann,  and  Scholz.  No 
two  of  these  agreed  ;  Griesbach  changed  his  de- 
cisions in  successive  editions  ;  Scholz  is  incon- 
sistent with  himself ;  and  Hahn  restored  much 
that  his  predecessors  had  discarded.  Turning 
to  the  eighteen  passages  omitted  from  the 
Egyptian  uncials,  citing  with  Hahn  and  Robin- 
son the  editors  by  their  initials,  G,  K,  L,  S,  H, 


100        NEW  TESTAMENT  GREEK  TEXT. 

and  indicating  passages  omitted  as  unsustained 
by  om.,  those  regarded  by  the  editor  as  doubt- 
ful and  hence  enclosed  in  brackets  by  d7ih.  or 
doubtful,  and  those  retained  as  belonging  to  the 
true  text  by  ret.,  the  following  is  the  record. 
Matt.  vi.  13  G  S  L  onu  K  H  dub, ;  Matt.  xii.  47 
3.11  ret.;  Matt.  xvii.  21  all  ret.;  Matt,  xviii.  11 
all  ret.  ;  Matt,  xxiii.  14  L  om.  G  K  S  H  ret.,  but 
transpose  vs.  13  and  14  ;  Matt.  xxiv.  35  all  ret.  / 
Mark  vi.  1 1  G  o^n.,  K  L  H  (S  not  cited)  dub.  ; 
Mark  xiii.  14  G  om.,  K  L  H  dub. ;  Luke  iv.  18 
G  o?M.,  K  L  H  dub. ;  John  v.  4  all  ret. ;  John  vii. 
53  to  viii.  1 1  all  ret.  ;  Acts  vii.  37  G  S  L  om.,  K 
H  dub. ;  Acts  ix.  6  G  K  S  L  o?n.,  H  dub. ;  i 
John  V.  7  all  om.  The  annals  of  editorial  criti- 
cism can  hardly  furnish  a  parallel  to  such  incon- 
sistency in  decisions  formed  from  "  individual 
opinions,"  and  which  "  rests  only  on  internal 
evidence."  When  it  is  considered  that  all  these 
editors  belong  to  the  same  school,  Hug  is  more 
than  justified  in  his  condemnation  of  the  rule  of 
judgment.  When  it  is  added  that  the  Egyptian 
uncials  and  the  Hesychian  recension,  on  which 
those  uncials  were  founded,  are  the  guides  of 
these  editors,  American  scholars  cannot  be  re- 
garded as  untrue  to  the  rules  of  just  criticism  if 
they  adhere  to  the  "  common  text "  of  the  Greek 
New  Testament. 

Sixth,  unconscious  partiality  for  a  preferred 


PARTIALITY  FOR  FA  VORITE  EDITORS.    loi 

class  of  authorities,  also  alluded  to  by  Hug,  has 
been,  as  in  Tregelles,  a  fascinating  leader.  This 
tendency,  charity  admits,  has  unconsciously  led 
to  the  preference  for  the  three  special  cursive 
manuscripts,  Nos.  i,  33,  69,  styled  '*  important " 
by  Tregelles.  This  doubtless  *led,  in  Tregelles' 
citation  from  Armenian  versions,  to  the  use  of 
copies  which  at  many  points  are  not  in  harmony 
with  the  now  received  version  of  the  Armenian 
Church.  This,  again,  doubtless  influenced  the 
omission  of  important  authorities  on  such  pas- 
sages as  Matt,  xviii.  ii.  Matt.  xxiv.  35  and  i 
John  V.  7,  which  are  cited  by  Poole.  This  un- 
conscious partiality,  yet  again,  doubtless  led  to 
the  selection  of  the  ''  version  of  Jerome  "  placed 
side  by  side  with  his  amended  Greek  text  by 
Tregelles  ;  as  its  selection  and  foot-note  refer- 
ence to  other  ''  Latin  versions  "  show.  While 
Hug,  specially  competent  to  decide,  traces  the 
whole  history  of  Latin  versions  before  and  after 
Jerome,  and  affirms  that  the  text  of  Jerome  was 
much  corrupted  by  his  successors,  that  it  was 
not  fully  received  till  the  sixth  century,  that 
Alcuinus  ''  intended  nothing  more  than  to  restore 
Jerome's  Bible  as  accurately  as  possible,"  and 
that  the  received  Vulgate,  whose  history  he 
traces,  was,  as  adopted  at  the  Council  of  Trent, 
substantially  the  '*  received  Church-version," 
Tregelles  alludes  to  four  versions,  and  selects  an 


I02         JSTEW  TESTAMENT  GREEK  TEXT. 

edition  of  Jerome  called  that  of  Amiatinus,  at 
Florence,  of  the  6th  century,  for  prominence. 
His  use  of  this,  as  compared  with  the  others 
cited,  seen  especially  on  Luke  iv.  1 8,  Acts  viii. 
37,  ix.  6  and  ist  John  v.  /,  betrays  his  predi- 
lections. Its  departures  from  the  received  Vul- 
gate, styled  by  Tregelles  the  ''Clementine" 
edition,  have  been  already  noted. 


UNSCIENTIFIC  CRITICISM  THE  MAIN  SOURCE  OF 
ERROR  AS  TO  THE  EGYPTIAN  UNCIALS. 

The  parallel  between  unscientific  methods  in 
physical  induction  and  in  philological  criticism, 
linking  themselves  as  both  do  with  materialistic 
theories,  has  become  so  palpable  as  to  call  forth 
the  animadversions  of  such  a  critic  as  the  Amer- 
ican Ripley  and  of  such  a  scientist  as  the  En- 
glish Lewes.  In  his  address  at  the  inauguration 
of  the  statue  of  Franklin  in  front  of  the  Tribune 
Building,  New  York,  George  Ripley,  ripe  and 
rich  in  both  the  experience  and  the  criticism  of 
every  phase  of  "  liberal  thought "  in  America, 
after  tracing  the  pervasive  tendencies  of  mate- 
rialism in  the  popular  literature  of  the  day,  de- 
clared that  its  rule  had  reached  its  climax ; 
from  which  a  reaction  was  sure  soon  to  begin. 


SPECULATIVE  THEORIES  RULING  CRITICS.   103 

Writing  the  Life  of  Goethe,  Lewes,  the  En- 
glish materialistic  evolutionist,  after  tracing  the 
speculative  tendencies  that  controlled  German 
idealistic  evolutionists,  like  Oken  and  Haeckell, 
based  on  the  poetic  fancies"  of  Goethe, — Lewes 
cites  the  following  supposed  case  to  illustrate 
the  differing  methods  of  logical  induction  and 
of  speculative  deduction.  Supposing  that  an 
international  prize  for  the  best  essay  on  the  two- 
humped  camel  were  offered,  he  gives  this  pic- 
ture. The  English  explorer  would  visit  the 
mountain  regions  of  Bactria  and  Thibet,  in  or- 
der that  he  might  study  the  camel  itself  in  its 
"  environment  " ;  the  French  scientist  would 
resort  to  all  the  Libraries  of  Europe,  and  would 
collate  all  that  had  ever  been  written  on  the 
subject ;  while  the  German  student  would  sit 
down  in  his  study  and  "  evolve  the  animal  out 
of  his  own  consciousness." 

This  parallel  as  to  method  pursued  in  scien- 
tific and  literary  criticism,  thus  observed  by  the 
veteran  Ripley  and  tl>e  satiric  Lewes,  is  seen  in 
the  common  result^  reached  by  both,  the  denial 
of  all  supernatural  spiritual  agency ;  a  result  at- 
tained by  proceeding  from  the  opposite  ends  of 
a  common  chain.  The  scientist,  predisposed  to 
reach  such  a  result,  begins  by  collating  facts 
which  indicate  that  the  origin^  as  well  as  the 
continuance,  of  the  mechanical  order  and  of  the 


104 


NEW  TESrAMJ'lNT  GREEK  TEXT. 


organizing  forces  of  the  material  Universe,  re- 
quires no  supposition  of  an  infinite  designing 
mind  ;  and  hence  he  is  prepared  to  deny  all  re- 
ceived truths  in  both  natural  and  revealed  relig- 
ion. The  Biblical  critic,  more  unconsciously 
predisposed  to  the  same  tendency,  beginning 
with  the  Christian  revelation,  denies  first,  be- 
cause he  has  not  experienced  it,  that  Divine 
regeneration  which  gives  the  "  eye,"  as  Jesus 
taught,  to  "  see  "  spiritual  truth  ;  second,  inspi- 
ration, given  by  the  same  Divine  power  to  reveal 
the  truth  to  be  seen  ;  and  third,  tlie  Divine  nat- 
ure, works  and  mission  of  Christ  as  the  mediator 
in  man's  redemption.  Unable,  because  it  would 
be  illogical,  to  pause  here,  when  he  passes  to 
the  truths  of  natural  religion,  this  13iblical  critic 
denies,  first,  the  efficacy  of  prayer,  except  as  a 
moral  influence  on  a  misguided  imagination  ; 
second.  Divine  Providence,  which,  if  real,  makes 
trust  in  prayer  to  be  anything  else  than  a  mental 
delusion  ;  and  third,  creation,  which  of  course, 
if  admitted,  demands  at  the  outset  as  many  and 
as  repeated  Divine  interpositions  as  there  are 
distinct  types  and  orders  in  plant  and  animal 
organism  ;  and  that,  not  only  in  any  one,  but 
in  each  successive  geological  age.  The  fact,  so 
palpable,  that  no  Biblical  critic  who  denies  the 
first  of  these  six  principles  can  maintain  logic- 
allv  either  of  the  other  five,  shows  the  natural 


REA  SONING  OF  RA  TIONALIS TS.         1 05 

and  necessary  tendency  of  this  school  in  Biblical 
criticism. 

The  process  pursued  under  their  method  by 
this  school,  generally  styled  ''  rationalistic,'*  in 
Biblical  criticism,  deserves  notice  ;  since  its 
whole  theory  is  proved  to  be  illegitimate,  if  the 
text  of  the  records,  claimed  as  inspired,  is  shown 
to  have  been  guarded  by  a  Divine  as  well  as  by 
human  watch-care.  The  claim  of  *' inspiration  " 
is  declared  to  be  an  a  priori  assumption,  rather 
than  an  inductive  and  demonstrative  conclusion  ; 
it  is  asserted  that  real  contradictions  in  history, 
and  inconsistencies  in  science,  as  well  as  errors 
in  the  text  are  found  ;  and  it  is  contended  that 
the  believers  in  Divine  inspiration  ''  argue  in  a 
circle,"  in  denying  without  proof  these  errors  on 
the  ground  of  inspiration.  If  the  claim  of  inspi- 
ration for  the  Old  and  New  Testament  records 
is  but  an  ''  a  priori  assumption,"  and  if  the  de- 
fence of  the  supposed  errors  is  simply  a  special 
plea  to  maintain  that  assumption,  then  these 
critics  are  right.  As,  however,  the  defenders  of 
the  truths  of  natural  religion  have  included  the 
best  and  ablest  men  of  India,  Greece  and  Rome, 
and  as  the  demonstrators  of  the  truths  of  re- 
x'ealed  as  well  as  of  natural  religion  have  em- 
braced the  ablest  scientists  and  jurists,  as  well 
as  biblicists,  successively  eminent  in  all  the  most 
advanced  nations  of  Europe, — while,  moreover, 


Io6        JVEW  TESTAMENT  GREEK  TEXT. 

the  Old  and  New  Testaments  have  ruled  the 
convictions  of  the  common  mind  wherever  their 
teachings  have  been  known, — the  "  burden  of 
proof,"  of  course,  rests  on  the  denier.  When, 
then,  the  reliableness  of  the  received  text  of 
those  records  is  called  in  question,  the  review  of 
the  steps  which  have  led  to  the  new  issue  may 
be  legitimately  retraced.  Though  it  may  be 
sufficient  to  have  shown  the  inconsistent  con- 
clusions drawn  from  misconceived  facts  in  the 
few  scholars  who  have  rejected  the  ''  common 
text,"  yet  to  see  as  plainly  the  unsustained 
foundation,  in  science  as  well  as  in  criticism,  on 
which  the  unsubstantial  superstructure  stands, 
may  aid  to  the  establishment  of  ''  the  truth  as 
it  is  in  Jesus"  in  Christian  confidence. 


SCIENTIFIC    DEFENCE    OF    FAITH    IN    THE 
TRUTHS   OF   NATURAL   RELIGION. 

All  effective  defence  of  truth,  as  Jesus  no  less 
than  Socrates  illustrated,  must  begin  with  show- 
ing the  fallacy  of  opposing  conclusions  ;  its  next 
step  must  be  to  show  that  the  very  premises  of 
the  opposition  bustain  the  contrary  conclusion ; 
and  it  must  close  with  the  direct  and  demon- 
strative proof  that  the  new  conclusion  thus 
reached    is    practically    the    only    truth     that 


CHRIST'S  ME  TllOn  IN  RE  A  SONING.       i  qj 

human  wisdom  can  accept.  The  first  proposi- 
tion of  EucHd  begins  with  the  "  reductio  ad  ab- 
surdum  "  ;  it  urges  next,  from  the  absurdity  of 
the  opposing  conckision,  the  truth  of  the  stated 
proposition  ;  and  it  cites,  last,  the  first-stated 
and  the  necessarily  accepted  axiom,  that  '*  two 
things  equal  to  a  third  are  equal  to  each  other," 
as  the  demonstrative  proof  of  that  conclusion. 
So  when  the  trul}^  supernatural  agency  of  Christ 
in  His  miracles-  was  denied,  and  hence  His  Di- 
vine nature  and  mission  were  called  in  question, 
Jesus  himself  pursued  this  natural  order  of  ef- 
fective reply.  First,  by  the  "  reductio  ad  ab- 
surdum,"  He  premised :  ^'  If  Satan  cast  out  Sa- 
tan, he  is  divided  against  himself;  how,^then, 
shall  his  kingdom  stand?"  Second,  by  the 
"  argumentum  ad  hominem,"  He  controverted  : 
"If  I  by  Beelzebub  cast  out  devils,  by  whom  do 
your  children  cast  them  out?  therefore  they 
shall  be  your  judges."  Third,  by  direct  and 
demonstrative  argument.  He  urged :  that  the 
power  which  dethrones  must  be  superior  to 
that  of  the  enthroned ;  that  nothing  but  Divine 
power  could  interpose  supernatural  agency  ;  that 
therefore  "  the  kingdom  of  God  was  come  "  to 
them  ;  and  finally  He  declares,  that  to  deny 
the  immediate  agency  of  the  Holy  Spirit  was 
to  be  controlled  by  a  spirit  so  opposed  to  the 
Divine  Being  as  to  shut  off  forever  acceptance 


I08         NEW  TESTAMENT  GREEK  TEXT. 

with  God  and  spiritual  association  with  the 
pure  and  true  around  the  Divine  throne.  In 
defence  of  Christ's  truth,  it  is  enough  that  the 
disciple  follow  his. Master. 

Theories  of  material  and  ideal  evolution  were 
rife  among  the  Brahmins  of  India  when  the 
Vedas,  which  preceded  the  day  of  Moses,  were 
written;  they  are  analyzed  in  the  Institutes  of 
Menu,  the  last  of  those  Vedas  ;  they  were  stud- 
ied by  Moses  in  Egypt,  and  are  apparently  al- 
luded to  in  this  declaration  (Deut.  iv.  8)  as  to 
the  superiority  of  ''the  statutes"  (hoqim,  or 
laws  of  nature,  Job  xxviii.  26;  Prov.  viii.  29, 
etc.),  which  he  received  from  God  ;  and,  in  his 
account  of  the  origin  of  all  things,  he  asserted 
that  Divine  *'  creation,"  not  self-evolution,  was 
"the  truth"  in  nature.  Such  theories,  much 
more  subtle,  were  rife  among  the  Greeks  and 
Romans  before  Jesus  appeared ;  they  are  al- 
luded to  by  Huxley  and  Haeckell,  the  former 
of  the  school  of  Democritus  and  Lucretius  and. 
the  latter  of  the  school  of  Xenophanes;  they 
were  replied  to  by  the  analysis  of  Socrates,  by 
the  logic  of  Aristotle  and  by  the  learning  of 
Cicero ;  they  are  alluded  to  by  Paul  as  natu- 
rally linked  to  and  parallel  with  "  mythical  "  lit- 
erary interpretations  at  Ephesus,  the  centre  of 
Grecian  speculative  thought  in  his  day ;  and  the 
great  Christian  apostle  shows  (i    Tim.  i.  4  and 


CUVIER  AND  AG  A  SSI Z  ON  EVOLUTION.    log 

vi.  20,  21)  that  "the  truth  as  it  is  in  Jesus  "re- 
veals the  baselessness  of  the  fancies  on  which 
both  are  made  to  rest.  So,  in  modern  times, 
Cuvier,  in  the  French  Academy  in  1830,  showed 
that  the  school  of  Goethe  and  Oken,  then  rep- 
resented by  St.  Hilaire,  presented  no  fact,  but 
only  a  theory ;  and,  more,  that  the  contrary 
truth  was  revealed  by  the  monuments  of 
Egypt,  which  pictured  horses  and  donkeys, 
wheat  and  barley,  4,000  years  ago  growing  side 
by  side  as  now,  while  in  all  succeeding  ages  no 
trace  of  change  of  type,  nor  intermediate  link, 
nor  progress  in  evolution  had  appeared.  Just 
so,  too,  Agassiz,  in  the  American  Academy  and 
in  lecture-halls,  declared  that  not  one  fact  cited 
by  Darwin  the  materialist  or  by  Haeckell  the 
idealist,  justifies  their  evolution  theories ;  and, 
yet  more,  that  all  the  facts  in  embryological 
development,  and  in  geological  succession, 
were  opposed,  instead  of  favorable,  to  the  idea 
of  evolution.  Moreover,  nothing  is  so  appar- 
ent to  practical  fruit-growers  and  cattle-breeders 
as  this:  that  the  seed  of  improved  varieties, con- 
trary to  Darwin's  theory,  degenerates  instead  of 
improving;  and  that  because  the  vital  energy 
is  exhausted  in  individual  improvement,  while 
the  power  of  reproduction  is  correspondingly 
impaired.  The  starting-point  of  this  class  of 
scientists,  whose    auxiliary  support   alone   sus- 


no        NEW  TESTAMENT  GREEK  TEXT. 

tains  the  parallel  school  in  Biblical  criticism,  is 
in  itself  as  opposed  to  all  rules  of  induction  as 
the  reasoning  of  their  coadjutors  in  literary 
criticism  is  opposed  to  the  laws  of  legitimale 
deduction.  It  is  this  latter  fact,  it  should  be 
observed,  which  serves  as  the  unsatisfactory 
postulate  on  which  their  reasoning  is  made  to 
rest. 


SCIENTIFIC    DEFENCE    OF     FAITH    IN    THE 
CHRISTIAN    REVELATION. 

The  starting-point  of  argument  against  in- 
spiration, that  it  presupposes  Divine  interposi- 
tion and  is  therefore  a  mere  a  priori  assump- 
tion, is  the  opposite  of  fact.  If  the  Divine  Be- 
ing has  interposed  in  creation,  again  and  again 
putting  forth  His  direct  energy  to  originate 
new,  and  to  human  conception  insignificant, 
types  of  plant  and  animal  organism — and  Agas- 
siz,  like  Socrates,  could  believe  nothing  else — 
then  the  expressed  conviction  of  Confucius, 
Socrates  and  Cicero,  that  that  same  Divine 
Creator  would  interpose  to  give  an  infallible 
moral  guide  for  man  His  highest  creature — that 
conviction  is  as  reliable  a  starting-point  in  the 
search  for  a  true  revelation  as  the  conviction 
that  universal  order  has  an  adequate  cause  is  a 


TESTS  OF  RE  VELA  TION  AS  A  FACT,      i\\ 

legitimate  starting-point  in  the  search  fornatural 
law.  But  this  prior  conviction  is  only  an  incentive 
to  search.  The  universal  belief  in  revelation, 
somewhere  to  be  found,  is,  in  the  next  place, 
a  just  cause  for  search ;  for  as  the  existence  of 
false  coin  proves  the  prior  existence  of  true 
coin,  so  is  it  with  a  Divine  revelation  of  needed 
spiritual  truth  ;  and  3/et,  as  intimated,  this  con- 
victioij  is  only  a  cause  for  search.  The  univer- 
sal conviction  that  if  a  supernatural  revelation 
of  spiritual  truth  be  given  it  will  be  attested  by 
supernatural  manifestations  of  interposed  mate- 
rial power,  called  "  miracles," — this  conviction 
is,  in  the  third  place,  \h^  guide  to  investigation 
of  the  claims  of  any  professed  revelation  ;  for, 
men  can  judge  of  the  real  supernatural  in  mate- 
rial interposition  addressed  to  the  eye ;  and 
this,  according  to  even  materialistic  induction, 
is  the  only  possible  demonstration  that  a  reve- 
lation has  been  given.  But  even  this  prior  con- 
viction is  not  in  itself  relied  on  as  if  it  were  a 
realized  fact.  It  is  historic  testimony,  which  is 
but  a  record  of  facts  observed  by  reliable  men  in 
other  ages,  which,  in  the  fourth  place,  is  relied 
upon  as  the  legitimate  proof  that  such  material 
interpositions  were  manifested  in  the  case  of 
Moses  and  of  Jesus.  As  to  Moses,  living  at 
the  culminating  era  of  Asiatic  science,  and 
"  learned "   in   Egyptian    art,   even    Pliny,   like 


112        NEW  TESTAMENT  GREEK  TEXT. 

Paul,  names  the  Egyptian  "  wise-men "  (or 
"  hakim,"  a  name  still  heard  in  Egypt  and  cog- 
nate, as  Fuerst  states,  to  "  hoqim  "  in  Deut.  iv. 
8)  who  sought  to  disprove  by  art  the  real  super, 
natural.  As  to  Jesus,  the  most  acute  Greeks 
and  the  most  careful  Romans,  at  the  very  age 
when  under  Augustus  ancient  European  phi- 
losophy reached  its  climax,  carefully  examined 
and  then  accepted  the  facts.  Moreover,  from 
the  first,  the  cultured  Arabian  mind  has  ac- 
cepted Mohammed's  own  repeated  assertions 
in  the  Koran,  that  while  no  other  professed 
Asiatic  revelation,  his  own  not  excepted,  could 
claim  the  test  of  seen  "  miracles,"  the  facts  as 
to  both  Moses  and  jesus  were  undeniable. 
Hence,  in  all  later  days,  even  to  our  time,  when 
studying  amid  the  local  traditions  of  Palestine, 
whose  historic  verity  is  like  those  of  every  other 
land,  not  only  Chateaubriand  and  Lamartine, 
Dr.  Robinson  and  Dean  Stanley,  but  men  like 
Strauss  and  Renan  can  no  more  deny  the  reli- 
ableness of  native  historic  tradition  than  they 
can  deny  hke  traditions  which  each  accepts  as 
reliable  in  his  own  native  land. 

It  is,  then,  no  a  priori  assumption  when  it  is 
claimed  that  the  books  of  the  Old  and  New  Tes- 
taments are  inspired  Divine  revelations.  This 
claim  rests  on  precisely  the  same  evidence  as 
the  claim  to  genuineness  of  the  historic  records 


OBJECTIONS  TO  INSPIRATION:  113 

of  Herodotus  ;  whose  statements  as  to  Egypt, 
as  Daniel  Webster  used  to  argue,  only  seemed 
to  be  myths  until  the  explorations  begun  by 
Napoleon  in  1798  revealed  the  correctness  of 
their  detail.  For,  grant,  as  it  must  be  granted, 
that  a  revelation  is  to  be  expected  as  a  needed 
moral  guide, — grant,  as  it  must  be  granted,  that 
the  Divine  Being  has  interposed  to  create  at 
many  an  era  a  comparatively  insignificant  new 
plant  or  animal — then  the  testimonies  to  the 
acts  and  teachings  of  Jesus,  which  assert  and 
attest  Divine  interposition,  must  be  accepted  on 
precisely  the  same  ground  as  the  testimonies  to 
the  occurrence  of  eclipses  of  the  sun  and  moon 
whose  record  Newton  accepted  as  the  data  for 
his  inductions.  He  who  denies  here  does  vio- 
lence to  all  the  laws  of  inductive  science. 


OBJECTIONS   TO   THE   FACT   OF  INSPIRATION. 

The  testimony  to  the  fact  that  a  Divine  reve- 
lation has  been  given,  is,  as  we  have  seen,  de- 
monstrative. The  fact  that  the  records  which 
embody  that  revelation  are  Divinely  inspired  is 
another  and  distinct  question  for  consideration. 
Here  it  should  be  observed  that  the  conviction 
that  the  Old  and  New  Testaments  are  inspired 
and  the  conception  of  the  nature  of  inspiration  are 
8 


114        ^E.W  TESTAMENT  GREEK  TEXT. 

not  to  be  confounded.  Every  one  is  convinced 
that  the  action  of  the  vocal  organs  in  the  utter- 
ance of  words  is  necessarily  associated  with  the 
exercise  of  the  mind  which  forms  the  thought 
to  be  put  into  words  ;  while  no  one  ever  yet  has 
gained  a  clear  conception  of  the  nature  of  this 
associated  co-operation  between  thought  and 
muscular  action.  Objections  to  the  fact  and  to 
the  manner  of  the  fact  are  to  be  kept  distinct 
in  their  consideration. 

So  far  as  the  Old  Testament  is  concerned, 
modern  objections  to  its  inspiration  may  be 
classed  under  three  heads  :  those  drawn,  first, 
from  the  words  used  in  its  statement,  or  its  vo- 
cabular}' ;  second,  from  its  statements  of  fact,  or 
its  historic  records  ;  and  third,  from  its  state- 
ments of  principle,  or  its  allusions  to  physical 
and  its  teachings  in  moral  science.  Specimens 
of  the  first  are  so-called  Chaldaeisms  ;  found  in 
its  poetry,  as  in  Exod.  15th,  Ps.  103d  and  Isa. 
40th  ;  and  urged  as  evidences  that  these  portions 
were  written,  not  in  the  age  when  they  profess 
to  be,  but  during  the  Babylonish  captivity,  when 
Chaldee  words  naturally  came  into  the  language. 
This  suggestion,  rife  a  century  ago,  has  led  the 
ablest  Hebrew  scholars,  especially  those  who  as 
Israelites  still  read  the  Hebrew  as  vernacular, 
to  note  these  facts.  The  original  language  of 
Abraham,  the  head  of  the  Hebrew  nation,  was 


CHALDEE  AND  HISTORIC  ST  A  TEMENTS.     \  i  5 

Chaldee  ;  and  just  as  old  Saxon  and  even  Celtic 
words  are  kept  alive  by  English  poets  in  suc- 
ceeding ages  from  Chaucer  to  Cowper,  so  Moses, 
David  and  Isaiah  kept  alive  old  Chaldee  terms 
in  their  poetry.  The  demonstrative  proof  of 
the  legitimacy  of  this  conclusion  is  this:  that, 
as  the  old  Latin  term  "  arare,"  meaning  to 
plough,  appears  in  the  English  words  "  ear,  ear- 
ing and  eared,"  whose  English  grammatical 
structure  shows  that  they  were  early  domesti- 
cated, and  are  not,  like  "  data,"  etc.,  of  late  in- 
troduction, so  the  Hebrew  grammatical  form 
given  to  these  old  Chaldee  words,  entirely  un- 
like in  grammatical  form  to  the  later  and  pure 
Chaldee  terms  introduced  into  the  book  of 
Daniel,  proves  that  the  writers  of  the  earliest 
Hebrew  ages  not  only  might,  but  as  history 
affirms  did,  use  the  older  Chaldee. 

Specimens  of  the  second  class,  or  supposed 
historic  errors,  every  one  of  which  have  been 
fully  elucidated  by  scholars  like  Poole,  are  such 
as  these.  Sennacherib,  of  Assyria,  is  said  to 
have  invaded  Judea  some  years  before  he  was 
king.  The  reply  is  manifest  ;  first,  that  Isaiah 
(xxxvi.  i)  and  Ezra  (2d  Chron.  xxxii.  i),  who 
would  be  quite  as  likely  to  know  the  fact  as  a 
modern  critic,  state  the  same  fact  as  it  is  found 
2d  Kings  xviii.  13  ;  while  any  student  of  com- 
parative history  will  recall  that  just  so  Titus  the 


Il6        NEW  TESTAMENT  GREEK  TEXT. 

Roman,  as  a  General,  some  years  before  he  was 
Emperor,  invaded  Judea.  Again,  the  statements 
(2d  Kings  viii.  26)  that  Ahaziah  was  "  twenty- 
two  years  old,"  and  (2d  Chron.  xxii.  2)  that  he 
was  "  forty-two  years  old "  on  coming  to  the 
throne,  are  met  by  Poole's  reference  to  I  Sam. 
xiii.  I.  The  phrase  "  son  (or  heir)  of  one  year 
in  his  reign  "  was  necessarily  varied  in  the  En- 
glish version  from  the  rendering  of  the  same 
form  of  expression  repeated  constantly  as  to 
subsequent  kings;  and  found  in  the  two  state- 
ments as  to  Ahaziah.  To  suppose  that  the  two 
Hebrew  writers  of  the  Kings  and  Chronicles 
would  contradict  each  other,  and  that  no  He- 
brew reader  for  centuries,  until  the  rise  of  mod- 
ern criticism,  would  detect  the  contradiction,  is 
certainly  an  a  priori  assumption  of  that  school 
of  criticism  which  awakens,  attention  to  their 
claims  to  profoundness.  The  explanation,  there- 
fore, intimated  by  the  Greek  translators  and  by 
Josephus,  is  not  only  natural,  but  demonstrative ; 
that  Ezra,  full  of  the  thought,  as  he  writes  the 
history  of  the  line  of  Judah's  kings,  that  the 
Messianic  succession  was  to  be  traced  in  its 
special  links  down  to  Zorababel,  the  leader  in 
the  return  and  restoration  of  the  Jewish  State — 
Ezra  goes  back  to  the  succession  of  Ahaziah's 
father,  the  son  of  Jezebel's  daughter ;  in  whom 
the  seed  of  the  royal  line  took  on  such  a  taint 


SCIENTIFIC  ST  A  TEMENTS  OF  MOSES.     1 1 7 

that  it  constituted  a  new  heirship  ;  makinc^ 
Ahaziah  "  the  son  (or  heir)  of  forty-two  years  in 
his  reign."  This  thought  of  Ezra,  indicated  in 
every  portion  of  his  historic  record,  has  its  par- 
allel in  Matthew's  note  that  the  blood  of  the 
incestuous  Tamar,  of  the  Canaanite  harlot  Ra- 
hab,  of  the  Moabitess  alien  Ruth,  and  of  the 
adulteress  Bathsheba,  tainted  the  line,  yet 
made  the  succession  of  the  true  Messiah  take 
in  the  three  families  of  mankind.  The  expe- 
rience of  Bunsen,  the  Egyptologist,  is  in  all 
this  class  of  objections  most  instructive.  After 
twenty  years  in  the  ambitious  search  through 
all  Grecian  and  Roman  histories,  and  through 
Chaldean  and  Egyptian  monumental  records,  to 
find  something  that  might  throw  discredit  on 
the  Hebrew  historians,  retiring  from  the  storm 
of  German  denunciation  which  he  was  likely  to 
encounter, — Bunsen,  in  his  "  Egypt's  Place  in 
Universal  History,"  exclaims,  "  History  was 
born  the  night  when  Moses  with  the  law  of 
God,  civil  and  moral,  in  his  heart  led  Israel  out 
of  Egypt." 

Specimens  of  the  third  class  of  objections  are 
found  in  the  statements  of  Moses  in  the  opening 
chapter  of  Genesis.  Theory  after  theory  in 
violation  of  the  laws  both  of  science  and  of 
philology  has  arisen,  has  had  its  day,  and  has 
declined.     The  supposition  that  Moses,  like  Lu- 


Il8        NEW  TESTAMENT  GREEK  TEXT. 

cretius,  drew  but  a  picture  of  the  imagination 
gives  the  radical  German  evolutionist  Haeck- 
ell  an  opportunity,  which  he  coveted,  to  dis- 
close the  speculative  errors  of  rationalistic  Bible 
interpreters  ;  and  he  writes  in  his  "  History  of 
Creation  "  (Appleton's  Edit.,  pp.  38,  39)  :  "  The 
hypothesis  of  Moses  is  surprising  in  its  clearness. 
....  In  his  theory  lies  hidden  progressive  de- 
velopment." So  far,  then,  from  being  a  poetic 
fancy,  like  that  of  Lucretius,  Moses,  even  ac- 
cording to  Haeckell,  belongs  to  the  advanced 
school  of  true  science.  Turning  then  to  inter- 
pret, as  scientific,  his  statement,  the  suggestion 
arose  that  by  a  "  day"  is  meant  a  ''  geological 
age " ;  a  suggestion  which  the  speedy  after- 
thought rejects  as  in  itself  unscientific ;  for, 
then,  there  have  been  just  *' six "  geological 
ages  ;  just  ''  six,"  no  less  and  no  more. 
Driven  from  this  position,  the  fact  is  recog- 
nized :  that  Moses,  by  his  qualification,  "  The 
evening  and  the  morning  were  the  first  day," 
etc.,  forbids  any  other  than  a  literal  interpre- 
tation of  the  word  "  day."  The  natural  and 
consistent  interpretation,  heard  by  the  writer 
from  Prof.  Hitchcock  as  a  school-boy  in  1834, 
and  quoted  by  Hitchcock  as  the  suggestion  of 
Chalmers  in  18 14,  is  this.  Moses  in  Gen.  i.  i 
refers  to  the  origin  of  material  existences  ;  in 
i.  2  he  states  all  he  has  to  reveal  of  geological 


INTERPRETATION  OF  MOSES'  GENESIS,   ng 

ages ;  and  in  i.  3  he  begins  at  the  point  in 
earth's  history,  when,  in  accordance  with  Agas- 
siz's  later  glacial  theory,  the  earth  by  cooling 
was  prepared  for  the  condensation  of  vapor 
which  permitted  the  sun's  rays  to  break  through 
the  mist ;  so  that  the  light  which  man  calls 
"  day "  could  through  that  mist  reach  the 
earth  ;  a  view  which  Moses'  own  second  state- 
ment (Gen.  ii.  4-6)  confirms  as  his  meaning. 
The  work  of  the  third  day  is  the  origin  of  the 
three  species  of  vegetation  adapted  to  the  new 
animals  and  to  man,  who  were  to  be  formed  ; 
while  the  work  of  the  fourth  day  is,  not  the 
creation  of  the  ''sun  and  moon,"  but  their  ap- 
pointment to  the  new  office  which  the  clear  at- 
mosphere and  the  new  plants,  for  the  first  time 
in  the  earth's  history,  now  permitted.  That 
this  general  view  is  correct,  especially  as  it  re- 
lates to  the  brevity  of  the  statements  in  Gen.  i. 
I,  2,  and  to  the  sudden  transition  at  Gen.  i.  3, 
is  confirmed  by  the  opening  of  John's  Gospel 
^\.  1-6) ;  where  ''  the  beginning"  and  "  the 
light"  are  spiritual,  earlier  than  the  material 
described  by  Moses  ;  where  the  brevity  is  as 
marked ;  and  where  the  transition  at  i.  6  is  as 
sudden. 

The  objections  to  the  fact  of  the  inspiration 
of  the  New  Testament  are  kindred  to  those 
made  as  to  the  Old  Testament.     They  relate  to 


I20        NEW  TESTAMENT  GREEK  TEXT. 

supposed  conflicting  historic  statements;  re- 
peatedly and  fully  replied  to  by  jurists  like 
Grotius,  Greenleaf  and  others;  who  have  ap- 
plied to  these  objections  the  laws  of  evidence 
which  guide  in  the  court-room  as  to  the  testi- 
mony of  witnesses  only  seemingly  in  conflict. 
They  seek,  again,  disputed  readings  in  the  text ; 
which  have  been  above  considered.  They  orig- 
inate, however,  in  objections  to  Divine  interpo- 
sition ;  which  are  met,  as  observed,  by  the  de- 
monstrative proofs  of  the  Divine  existence, 
providence  and  creation. 


THE    MANNER    OF    THE   FACT   OF   INSPIRATION 
ILLUSTRATED   BY  ANALOGY. 

The  Grecian  Socrates  showed,  both  that  the 
facts  of  religious  conviction  are  demonstrative, 
and  that  the  manner  of  the  fact  is  only  approx- 
imated by  analogy;  and  the  same  reasoning 
makes  demonstrative  the  received  truths  of  re- 
vealed religion,  while  it  also  illustrates  their 
nature.  When,  seeking  to  show  that  the  ac- 
cepted faith  in  the  several  principles  of  natural 
religion  rested  on  testimonies  precisely  like 
those  of  mathematical  calculation,  Socrates 
asked  how  we  know  the  first  mathematical  ax- 


MATHEMATICAL  AXIOMS  ''A  PRIORI:'    121 

iom,  that  "  two  things  equal  to  a  third  are  equal 
to  each  other"?  The  reply  being  given,  "we 
see  that  two  things  are  equal,  and  that  each  is 
equal  to  the  third,"  holding  up  his  two  fore- 
fingers, he  urged  that  the  more  we  scan  things 
supposed  to  be  equal,  the  more  we  see  that 
they  are  not  equal ;  and  he  satisfied  his  hearers 
that  the  supposed  seen  fact  of  "  equality "  is 
really  an  a  priori  idea  of  the  mind,  which  we 
only  apply  to  observed  objects.  Our  ideas,  like- 
wise, of  cause,  of  design,  of  duty,  and  of  fu- 
ture spiritual  existence,  are,  he  urged,  as  legiti- 
mate as  the  idea  of  equality ;  and  our  applica- 
tion of  them  in  reasoning  leads  to  conclusions 
as  demonstrative  as  those  attained  by  the  math- 
ematics. Sir  Isaac  Newton  recognized  this  fact 
in  the  a  priori  arguments  of  Samuel  Clarke,  not 
only  for  the  existence  and  character  of  the  Di- 
vine Being,  but  also  for  the  fundamental  truths 
of  Christian  revelation.  The  world  can  never 
outgrow  this  truth  :  that  the  existence  of  a  Di- 
vine revelation  is  a  demonstrated  fact ;  as  reli- 
able as  is  the  fact  of  planetary  motion  or  of 
plant  organism. 

The  manner  of  these  facts,  however,  will 
without  doubt  always  elude  human  ken ;  and 
so  with  the  manner  of  the  fact  of  inspiration. 
It  is  only  by  approximation  that  science  traces 
the  nature  of  the  forces  called  gravity  and  vi- 


122         NEW  TESTAMENT  GREEK  TEXT. 

tality,  by  observing  their  witnessed  operation ; 
and  so  the  nature  of  inspiration  is  only  traced 
by  progressive  approach.  Here  facts  must  be 
observed  and  accepted ;  then  theories  must  be 
modified  so  as  to  accord  with  accumulated  and 
ever- accumulating  observations;  while,  how- 
ever, each  new  shifting  of  the  point  of  the  ob- 
server's view  adds  new  confirmation  to  \\\q  fact^ 
the  manner  of  whose  operation  still  eludes  hu- 
man comprehension. 

Looking  at  the  books  of  the  Old  and  New 
Testaments,  three  facts  are  palpable.  First,  the 
records  are  made  up  in  part  from  human  mem- 
ories, preserved  in  oral  traditions  or  written  rec- 
ords. This  is  apparent  in  the  scrap  of  Antedi- 
luvian poetry,  and  in  the  genealogical  table 
quoted  at  the  opening  of  Moses'  record  (Gen. 
iv.  23,  24  and  v.  i) ;  it  is  stated  in  the  books  of 
Kings  by  references  to  national  "  chronicles  "• 
it  is  a  testimony  appealed  to  by  Luke  as  his  au- 
thority (Luke  i.  1-4);  and  it  is  alluded  to  by 
Paul  as  the  testimony  to  which  the  facts  of  the 
Gospel  history  and  the  teachings  of  Christ  were 
for  many  years  left  after  His  personal  life  had 
ended  (2  Thess.  ii.  15).  Second,  the  uninspired 
statements  and  reasonings  of  men  are  incorpo- 
rated into  both  the  Old  and  New  Testament  rec- 
ords ;  as  is  specially  marked  in  the  earliest  po- 
etical book,  that  of  Job ;    and  as  is  illustrated 


ANALOG  V  ILL  US  TEA  TING  INSPIRA  TION.  123 

in  the  letter  of  the  Roman  captain  at  Jeru- 
salem sent  to  the  Roman  governor  then  at  Caes- 
area  (Acts  xxiii.  26-30).  Third,  the  partial 
views  and  personal  opinions  of  the  writers  are 
found  wrought  into  their  records  as  a  part  of 
the  inspired  statement  they  were  called  to 
make.  Thus  Moses  and  Paul  record  their  own 
errors  and  faults ;  John  states  misunderstand- 
ings of  Christ's  statements  which  all  His  disci- 
ples entertained;  and  Paul  interweaves  through- 
out an  entire  chapter  (i  Cor.  vii.  i,  6,  10,  12,  17, 
25,26,  40)  his  personal  "advice"  with  "com- 
mandment received  from  the  Lord";  declaring 
even  that  on  some  points  (v.  40)  he  was  not 
certain  from  which  of  the  two  the  suggestion 
came. 

These  palpable  statements  as  to  the  nature 
of  inspiration,  however,  but  set  off  the  fact  of 
inspiration  as  a  necessary  Divine  provision ; 
while  they  impress  the  analogy  between  Divine 
interposition  in  the  physical  universe,  and  es- 
pecially in  spiritual  regeneration,  as  directly 
cited  by  both  Christ  and  Paul.  This  analogy 
Christ  intimates  by  the  associated  statements 
(John  iii.  3-1 1),  "  Except  a  man  be  born  again 
(revis.  anew)  he  cannot  see  the  kingdom  of 
God,"  and  "We  speak  that  we  do  know 
and  testify  that  we  have  seen " ;  and,  again 
(John   xiv.   26;    and  xvi.  8,  13),   "When   he   is 


124        A^^^F  TESTAMENT  GREEK  TEXT. 

come  he  shall  reprove  (revis.  will  convict)  the 
world  of  sin,"  and  *'  He  shall  bring  all  things  to 
remembrance  whatsoever  I  have  said  unto  you  ; 
he  shall  guide  you  into  all  truth."  It  is  a  nec- 
essary a  priori  conviction,  a  demonstrative  con- 
clusion that  confirms  as  well  as  illustrates  Christ's 
words  when  these  essential  elements  in  the  nat- 
ure of  inspiration  are  thus  coupled  in  His  own 
statement.  It  was  essential  that  the  memory 
of  John  (x'iv.  26)  should  be  Divinely  aided 
when  he  was  called  to  the  double  duty,  first  of 
selecting  from  the  mass  of  incidents  and  sayings 
of  Christ's  life  (xx.  30  and  xxi.  25),  and  then  of 
accurately  reporting^  some  sixty  years  after  they 
were  uttered,  statements  which  were  not  under- 
stood when  they  were  heard.  It  is  an  equally 
logical  and  demonstrative  conclusion  that  noth- 
ing but  the  teaching  of  the  Divine  Spirit  could 
lead  unlettered  Galileans  into  "all  truth" 
needed  to  satisfy  and  guide  the  most  cultured 
and  advanced  minds  of  all  subsequent  ages. 
At  the  same  time  the  entire  analogy  between 
the  co-operative  action  of  human  and  Divine 
influence  in  individual  spiritual  guidance  is 
made  by  Paul,  the  specially  inspired  apostle,  to 
introduce  (i  Cor.  2d  chap.)  his  own  statement 
how  there  came  from  his  pen,  now  his  personal 
"  advice,"  and  now  the  Lord's  ''  command- 
ment "  (chap.  7th).     If  deep  spiritual  truth  can 


INSPIRA  TION  MA  DE  CLE  A  R  BY  OFF-  SE  TS.    125 

be  revealed  only  by  the  Divine  Spirit,  certainly 
no  man  could  speak  or  write  that  truth  but  '*  in 
the  words  "  taught  by  that  Spirit.  Yet  more, 
if  human  imperfection  may  co-exist  and  consist 
with  Divine  influence  in  spiritual  redemption 
in  the  individual,  it  may  also  co-exist  and  con- 
sist with  Divine  inspiration  ;  as  the  analogy  be- 
tween the  two,  both  intimated  and  declared  by 
Jesus  and  His  apostles,  teaches.  Still  yet  more, 
it  is  when  the  two  are  brought  together  in  im- 
mediate contrast,  as  in  i  Cor.  7th  chap.,  that 
Divine  infallibility  is  most  clearly  seen  to  rule 
human  fallibility  in  essential  spiritual  truth  as 
distinct  from  mere  rules  of  expediency ;  just  as 
the  true  miracle  of  Paul  was  illustrated  in  its  es- 
sential nature  by  the  contrasted  pretence  of  the 
sons  of  Sceva  (Acts  xix.  13-20).  The  inspira- 
tion of  the  entire  record  is  seen  most  in  its  or- 
daining that  this  contrast  be  made  a  part  of  the 
Divine  teaching.  In  like  manner  the  nature  of 
the  inspiration  of  the  Old  Testament  writers  is 
set  forth  by  Peter;  who  like  John  heard  Christ's 
statements.  From  the  analogy  of  the  manner 
in  which  he  and  his  fellow  apostles  received  and 
wrote  what  they  had  "  seen  and  heard,"  and  yet 
did  not  at  all  comprehend,  Peter  declares  (ist 
Peter  i.  8-12  and  2d  i.  16-21  and  iii.  2)  that  the 
same  immediate  guidance  must  have  been  given 
to  prophets  who  "  searched  what  and  what  man- 


126        NEW  TESTAMENT  GREEK  TEXT. 

ner  of  times  the  Spirit  of  .Christ  which  was  in 
them  did  signify  when  it  testified  beforehand 
the  sufferings  of  Christ  and  the  glory  that 
should  be  revealed." 


THE  COMMON  TEXT  OF  THE  GREEK  NEW 
TESTAMENT  SUSTAINED. 

The  modern  doubt  thrown  on  the  integrity 
of  the  "  textus  receptus  "  has  been  met  at  every 
point  by  German,  French,  EngHsh  and  Ameri- 
can scholarship  in  each  of  the  several  depart- 
ments of  investigation  which  reveal  the  grounds 
of  that  doubt.  Studied  effort  to  undermine  the 
integrity  of  the  ''  textus  receptus "  began  in 
Germany,  among  the  rejectors  of  the  supernat- 
ural interposition  clearly  manifest  in  the  Old 
and  New  Testament  records ;  whose  verity  was 
maintained  by  evangelical  as  distinct  from  ra- 
tionalistic interpreters.  It  was  fostered  by  Ger- 
man speculative  tendencies  of  thought ;  and  has 
unconsciously  pervaded  the  minds  not  only  of 
a  large  class  in  the  State  Churches  of  Germany 
and  of  England,  but  has  stolen  into  the  Scot- 
tish Presbyterian  State  and  Free  Churches,  and 
has  also  influenced  a  large  class  of  American 
Biblical  students  who  have  over-estimated  the 
comparative  value  of  German  philological  re- 
search. 


FULL  SUPPORT  OF  GREEK  TEXT.         127 

The  speculative  tendency  of  German  intellect, 
already  alluded  to  in  physical  science  as  hinted 
by  Lewes,  has  been  manifest  to  the  acutest  and 
most  comprehensive  scholars  in  every  depart- 
ment of  research.  Guizot,  in  his  "  History  of 
Civilization  in  Europe,"  cites  the  speculative 
tendency  of  German  statesmanship  as  compared 
with  the  practical  advance  of  English,  American 
and  French  jurisprudence.  Presidents  McCosh, 
Porter,  and  others,  have  pointed  out  that  tend- 
ency in  the  century  of  philosophic  development 
since  Kant ;  and  no  pages  of  the  history  of  man 
form  in  this  respect  such  a  contrast  as  the  his- 
tory of  French  and  English  as  compared  with 
German  philosophy.  Greenleaf,  Fisher,  Peabody 
and  others  have  revived  the  age  of  Grotius  and 
Poole  in  meeting  the  assaults  of  speculative 
theorizing  as  to  the  authenticity  and  genuine- 
ness of  the  Old  and  New  Testament  records. 
Tholuck  in  Germany,  and  such  pupils  of  his  as 
the  American  Sears,  early  warned  evangelical 
students  for  the  Christian  ministry  of  the  insid- 
ious undercurrent  that  was  sweeping  so  many  a 
brilliant  scholar  from  his  moorings.  The  Amer- 
ican Theological  Seminaries,  such  as  those  of 
Andover  and  Newton,  of  New  York  and  Prince- 
ton, brought  forth  men  equal  to  the  occasion  ; 
and  translations  from  the  truer  scholars  of  Ger- 
many itself  went  to  the  root  of  the  misleading 


128        NEW  TESTAMENT  GREEK    TEXT. 

tendency.  Within  the  last  twenty  years  Dornei 
in  his  exhaustive  treatise,  and  Ritschl  by  his  keen 
supplementary  analysis,  have  shown,  from  their 
native  point  of  view  in  German  theology,  how 
the  "  subjective  "  tendency  to  individual  specu- 
lation has  overruled  "objective"  devotion  to 
the  impartial  interpretation  of  the  teachings  of 
Jesus  and  of  His  apostles  ;  while  their  American 
auxiliaries,  Hodge,  Shedd,  Washburn  and  others, 
have  in  "  evangelical  alliance  "  been  led  to  new 
and  successful  vindications  of  the  "  faith  once 

delivered  to  the  saints." 

ft 

Meanwhile  the  quiet  work  of  undermining 
the  foundations  of  the  whole  fabric  of  the 
Christian  faith,  the  integrity  of  the  text  of  the 
New  Testament,  has  gone  on  ;  and  that  through 
the  ''subjective"  rule  of  "  internal  evidence" 
unconsciously  accepted  as  legitimate  by  editors 
of  the  Greek  New  Testament,  like  Griesbach 
and  Hahn  ;  and  as  unconsciously  received  by 
American  and  English  as  well  as  German  Bible 
students.  Its  culmination,  in  the  misleading  of 
Tregelles  and  the  ambition  of  Tischendorff,  its 
realized  outcome  in  the  omissions  of  the  Can- 
terbury revisers,  call  attention  to  the  fact  that 
the  Egyptian  uncials  have  been  the  blinding 
guide.  Germany  itself,  in  her  own  Hug,  has 
furnished  the  master  watchman  who  has  sur- 
veyed  the  whole  field.     From   the   successive 


PROSPECTIVE  SUPPORT  OF  GREEK  TEXT.   \2(^ 

guardians  of  the  Greek  "koine  ekdosis"  of 
Origen's  day  to  the  Oriental,  Roman,  German 
and  Engh'sh  translators,  the  "  watchmen,"  who, 
in  all  ages  and  on  all  the  encompassing  battle- 
ments, have  guarded  "  the  truth  as  it  is  in 
Jesus/'  have  "■  seen  eye  to  eye."  American 
Christians,  under  the  shelter  of  whose  institu- 
tions inquiring  minds  of  every  nation  and 
from  all  the  continents  are  gathering — Ameri- 
can Christians,  who  need  more  than  any  people 
of  any  age  to  know  and  hold  the  truth,  have 
learned  from  Germany  itself  how  the  "  true 
light "  shining  from  heaven  is  to  be  distin- 
guished from  the  "  false  lights"  that  have  been 
kindled  along  their  shore. 


PROSPECTIVE  CONFIRMATION  OF  THE  INTEG- 
RITY OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  GREEK 
TEXT. 

The  fact  realized  by  Origen  in  the  second 
century  has  been  re-confirmed  ;  and  that  through 
the  indirect  agency  of  the  British  and  Foreign 
Bible  Society.  As  Paul  affirmed  in  his  day,  so 
in  the  second  and  the  nineteenth  centuries  the 
fact  is  confirmed,  that  the  chief  honor  of  the 
Israelite  Church  is  this :  the  ''  lively  oracles  " 
of  the  Old  Testament,  given  to  Israel  in  their 


130       ^E^V  TESTAMENT  GREEK  TEXT. 

own  tongue,  have  been  preserved  in  their  integ- 
rity from  the  day  that  Jesus  sanctioned  that 
preserved  record  as  God's  revelation.  It  is  to 
the  honor  of  American  Bible  and  Mission  Soci- 
eties that  the  Divine  origin  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment has  been  attested  as  never  before  in 
Christian  history.  That  the  truths  of  natural 
and  revealed  religion  are  in  harmony,  and  that 
both  alike  are  from  man's  Maker,  has  been 
demonstrated  by  this  fact  :  not  a  nation  or 
tribe,  however  rude,  has  ever  been  found  whose 
ideas  and  words,  beforehand  conceived  and  put 
in  form,  have  not  permitted  the  transfer  and 
translation  of  the  ideas  and  words  embodied  in 
the  Gospel  of  Jesus  Christ.  Certainly  the  book 
is  Divine ;  God's  own  gift,  inspired  by  Him,  to 
be  man's  guide  ;  and  surely  He  who  gave  it  will 
influence  His  own  servants  to  guard  it. 

The  chief  boon  bestowed  by  the  band  of  En- 
glish and  American  scholars  who  have  given  a 
version  of  the  Sacred  Scriptures  in  the  language 
now  read  by  nations  encircling  the  globe  will  be 
twofold.  Many  a  new  light  will  meet  the  eyes 
of  deeply  yearning  readers,  as  the  words  of  the 
great  body  of  the  New  Testament  records  are 
drunk  in  by  spirits  longing  to  find  the  truth 
there  revealed.  But  this  accomplished  end,  in- 
estimable because  of  its  wide  extent,  will  prove 
but  secondary.     As  for  the  first  time  since  the 


RE  VISION  A  DO  UBIE  BOON.  131 

days  of  the  apostles  this  widely-read  version 
reveals  chasms,  unknown  to  Greek  and  Oriental, 
to  Roman  and  Protestant  readers,  the  causes  of 
the  omission  will  be  sought.  What  Lewes  hinted 
as  to  the  spirit  of  English  research,  the  zeal 
which  Robinson  and  others  have  illustrated  in 
American  Biblical  research,  may  be  awakened  and 
stimulated.  Instead  of  the  mountains  of  Bactria 
and  Thibet  being  filled  with  camel  hunters,  the 
''  famine  for  the  word  of  God  "  may,  as  in  Amos' 
day,  prompt  the  search  for  new  fields  where 
the  uncorrupted  "  seed,"  which  as  Christ  said 
is  "  the  word  of  God,"  may  be  found.  The  un- 
explored convent-libraries  along  the  Nile,  men- 
tioned by  Lane  and  Wilkinson,  may  be  searched ; 
the  originals  from  which  the  uncial  manuscripts 
were  corrected  may  be  found  ;  and  the  versions 
really  used  and  therefore  regarded  authoritative 
in  the  Abyssinian,  Coptic,  Syrian,  Armenian 
and  Russian  Churches  may  be  studied  and  col- 
lated. Most  of  all,  the  real  grounds  for  the 
adherence  of  the  Greek  Church,  the  natural 
guardian  of  the  sacred  text,  to  their  "  koine 
ekdosis "  may  be  examined  and  weighed.  It 
cannot  be  that  the  Divine  Author  of  the  New 
Covenant,  after  guarding  so  carefully  the  Old 
Testament,  will  suffer  the  imperfection  of  man 
to  "  disannul  or  add  to  "  the  New  Testament, 
His  perfected  revelation  of  His  will  for  man. 
Fresh  confirmation  of  the  occasion  and  prom- 


132 


NEW  TESTAMENT  GREEK  TEXT. 


ise  of  the  foregoing  review  comes  to  hand  as  its 
last  pages  are  stereotyped.  The  London  Quar- 
terly for  October,  1881,  reviews  four  works:  the 
Revised  Version,  issued  by  the  Cambridge  and 
Oxford  presses ;  the  Greek  Text  of  Dr,  Scrive- 
ner of  Cambridge,  that  of  Dr.  Palmer  of  Oxford, 
and  that  of  Drs.  Westcott  and  Hort  of  Cam- 
bridge and  London.  The  writer  declares  that 
the  Revision  is  "  founded  on  an  entirely  new  re- 
vision of  the  received  Greek  Text,"  and  de- 
nounces it  as  a  "serious"  assumption  thus  to 
commit  the  English  Universities.  He  urges 
that  the  "common  text"  has  been  Divinely 
guarded  in  numberless  Greek  copies,  in  ver- 
sions and  in  early  Christian  citations.  He 
shows  that  it  is  the  Egyptian  uncials  which  have 
misled  Tregelles  and  Tischendorff ;  and  declares 
they  have  "  established  a  tyrannical  ascendancy 
over  the  imaginations  of  the  critics."  He  fills 
pages  with  illustrations  of  their  disagreement 
among  themselves ;  and  dwells  on  the  doubt 
thrown  on  the  last  twelve  verses  of  Mark's  Gos- 
pel ;  on  the  conforming  of  the  Lord's  prayer  to 
Luke's  abbreviated  abstract  of  the  Sermon  and 
Prayer ;  and  on  the  change  in  the  angel's  song 
over  Bethlehem,  He  traces  the  errors  of  the 
uncials  to  four  classes  and  causes :  accident,  de- 
sign, assimilation  and  mutilation.  The  Divine 
Providence  which  has  permitted  this  revived 
discussion  saw  its  need  and  foresaw  its  end. 


PUBLICATIONS 

OF 

Moses  King,  Publisher  and  Bookseller, 

HARVARD   SQUARE, 
CAMBRIDGE,      MASS. 


The  following  publications  can  be  bought  of  book- 
sellers throughout  the  United  States;  or  they  will  be  sent, 
free  of  postage,  to  any  address,  on  receipt  of  f  rice. 


True  "Womanhood;  or.  Hints  on  the  Formation  of 
True  Womanly  Character.  By  Rev.  Franklin 
Johnson,  D.  D.  140  pp.  Cloth.  $1.00.  With  por- 
trait of  author. 

The  title  explains  the  object  of  this  book.  Its  contents  comprise  ten 
thoughtfully  written  chapters,  showing,  in  an  intelligent,  instructive,  and  en- 
tertaining manner,  the  true  course  for  any  young  woman  to  pursue  in  order  to 
attain  the  highest  and  noblest  development. 

The  author  is  one  of  the  most  eminent  clergymen  in  the  Baptist  denomi- 
nation, and  is  esteemed  by  clergymen  of  all  denominations  as  one  of  the  ablest 
pastors  in  New  England;  and  the  volume  here  offered  to  the  public  is  the  re- 
sult of  forty  years'  constant  pastoral  work.  No  one,  young  or  old,  can  read 
the  book  without  being  materially  encouraged  in  the  right  path.  Any  one  can 
well  afford  to  present  a  copy  of  this  admirably  written  book  to  every  girl  or 
young  lady  in  whose  welfare  he  is  interested.  It  is  a  little  classic  in  its 
line. 

One     Thousand    American    Poems    by    One 
Thousand     Living     American     Authors. 
600   pp.     100  portraits.     Cloth.     $3.00. 
It  is  intended  that  this  work,  when  issued  Oct.  t,  1882,  shall  be  one  of  the 
most  remarkable  poetical  collections  of  tlie  present  time.   The  one  thousand  se- 
lections are  by  one  thousand  different  authors,  all  Americans  and  all  living  on 
the  first  day  of  March,  1882.     The  selections  are  made  from  books,  maga- 
zines, newspapers,  scrap-books,  and  mss.  in  the  publisher's  possession.     Ac- 
companying each  poem  is  the  author's  fdl  name,  birthplace,  date  of  birth,  and 
present  address  whenever  they  can  be  obtained.    The  work  will  be  printed  on 
fine  paper  and  handsomely  bound      It  will  be  illustrated  with  one  hundied 
porl  raits  of  authors  wh  >se  poems  are  used. 


MOSES    KING'S    PUBLICATIONS. 


Benjamin  Peirce.  Memorial  volume.  i6mo.  64  pp. 
With  portrait  finely  engraved  on  wood.  Cloth,  $1.00; 
paper,  50  cents. 

This  little  volume  has  received  the  warmest  commendation  of  the  friends 
of  Benjamin  Peirce  and  of  Harvard  University  and  of  science  the  world  over. 
It  was  designed  simply  as  a  token  of  the  compiler's  gratitude  to  the  late  pro- 
fessor, who  for  half  a  century  ser^'ed  the  university  as  one  of  its  most  faithful 
officers,  and  who  for  two  generations  did  as  much  as  any  one  of  his  colleagues 
to  add  lustre  to  the  institution  with  which  he  w^s  so  long  identified. 

The  contents,  besides  a  good  portrait  as  a  frontispiece,  include  Four  Ser- 
mons, by  the  Rev.  Drs.  A.  P.  Peabody,  James  Freeman  Clarke^  Cyrus  A. 
Bartol,  and  Thomas  Hill;  Three  Poems,  by  Oliver  Wendell  Holmes,  Thomas 
W.  Parsons,  and  George  Thwing;  Resolutions  of  the  President  and  Fellows, 
t^e  Faculty  of  the  College,  and  the  Social  Science  Association;  Biographical 
Sketches,  reprinted  from  "  The  Harvard  Register,"  "  Boston  Daily  Adver- 
tiser," "  Boston  Journal,"  "New  York  Tribune,"  "The  Nation,"  "Spring-* 
field  Republican,"  "  Woman's  Journal,"  "  Boston  Evening  Transcript," 
"  Journal  of  Science,"  "  London  Nature,"  "  Journal  of  Social  Science,"  etc. 
The  volume  is  printed  on  heavy  calendered  paper,  with  wide  margins  and 
untrimmed  edges. 

The  English  Reviser's  Greek  Text.    Shown  to  be 

unauthorized  except  by  Egyptian  copies  discarded  by 
the  Greeks,  and  to  be  opposed  to  the  historic  text  of 
all  ages  and  churches.  By  George  W.  Samson,  D.D., 
LL.D.,  Ex-President  of  Columbian  College,  and 
President  of  the  Bible  Workers'  College.  132  pp. 
Cloth,  75  cents  ;  paper,  50  cents. 

The  author  endeavors  in  this  work  to  prove  that  the  "  Revised  Edition  " 
of  the  New  Testament  is  less  authentic  and  less  preferable  than  the  King 
James  translation.  The  treatment  of  the  subject  is  mild,  but  positive,  and  the 
evidence  brought  to  bear  shows  the  result  of  long  and  earnest  study.  Dr. 
Samson's  position  as  an  Orthodox  clergyman,  is  sufficient  guarantee  that  the 
discussion  has  been  undertaken  in  good  faifh,  and  in  the  hope  that  it  will  be 
serviceable  in  determining  which  is  the  "  inspired  text."  The  style  of  the 
book  has  been  made  simple  enough  for  laymen  as  well  as  clergymen,  and  any 
one  who  pretends  to  make  a  study  of  the  New  Testament,  will  find  in  this 
little  work  much  to  remind  him  of  what  he  has  forgotten,  and  not  a  little  that 
he  has  never  known. 

King's  .  Handbook  of  Boston.  Fourth  edition.— 
twelfth  thousand.  330  pp.  200  illustrations.  Cloth. 
$1.00. 

This  work  contains  330  pages,  illustrated  with  200  steel  and  wood  engrav- 
ings, and  albertype  and  heliotype-photographs.  It  is  a  comprehensive  history 
and  description  of  Boston,  serving  also  as  a  guide-book.  It  has  received  the 
approbation  of  residents  and  strangers.  The  press  have  been  unanimous  in  its 
endorsement.  The  "Post"  says:  "  It  has  long  been  recognized  as  the  best 
description  of  the  city  that  has  been  published  "  The  "  Congregationalist:" 
"  The  best  guide-book  to  the  city  of  Boston  ever  issued"  The  "Christian 
Register:"  "  Mr.  King  deserves  a  seat  at  the  Lord  Mayor's  table."  The 
"Commonwealth:"  "Everything  is  tasteful  about  it."  Notwithstanding  its 
size  (330  pages) ;  its  many  illustrations  (200):  its  handsome  printing;  its  neat 
cloth  binding;  its  completeness,  and  its  accuracy,  it  is  sent  post-paid,  to  any 
adiircss,  on  the  receipt  of  one  dollar. 


MOSES    KING'S    PUBLICATIONS. 


Selections  from  the  Scriptures.  By  Rev.  David 
Greene  Haskins,  D.D.  i6mo.  402  pp.  Cloth. 
$1.50. 

The  object  of  this  book  is  to  enable  even  the  youngest  mind  to  read  and 
understand  uhe  teachings  of  the  Bible.  It  brings  together  an  outline  of  the 
important  events  of  sacred  history  in  their  proper  order  and  in  the  closest  con- 
nection, omitting  the  divisions  of  chapters  and  verses,  making  an  interesting 
daily  reading  for  families  and  schools. 

The  Boston  Public  Latin  School.  An  historical 
and  descriptive  sketch.  By  Henry  F.  Jenks.  i6mo. 
9  illustrations.     24  pp.     Paper.     15  cents. 

4        This  is  a  brief  and  authentic  sketch  of  the  oldest  preparatory  school  in 
America;  the  school  having  been  founded  m  1635. 

The  Revolutionary  Movement  m  Russia.  By 
Ivan  Panin.     32  pp.     Paper.     20  cents. 

This  is  a  clear  and  able  statement  of  the  present  epoch  in  Russia,— chiefly 
a  reprint  from  "  The  New  York  Herald,"  but  edited  with  preface  and  notes  by 
an  educated  Russian. 

'Waltham— Past  and  Present.     By  Charles  A. 

Nelson.  With  55  photographic  illustrations.    150  pp. 
Cloth.     $2.50.     Without  photographs,  $1.00. 

No  city  in  Massachusetts  has  a  neater,  more  accurate,  or  more  interesting 
small  histurical  and  descriptive  volume  than  Waltham  has  in  this  work.  Its 
fifty-five  illustrations  are  genuine  photographs,  thereby  preserving,  without 
modification  or  error,  the  different  views  of  places  now  to  be  seen,  including 
schools,  churches,  public  buildings,  factories,  scenery,  etc.  The  contents  in- 
clude an  historical  sketch  of  early  Watertown,  many  queer  stories  of  olden 
times,  succinct  accounts  of  the  creditable  part  Waltham  and  its  people  took  in 
the  Revolutionary  and  Civil  wars,  graphic  accounts  of  the  industries,  good 
sketches  of  the  religious  and  other  organizations,  and  references  to  every  thing 
usually  found  in  small  local  histories  or  guide-books.  The  index  is 'exhaustive 
and  well  arranged.  Only  one  thousand  copies  of  the  book  were  printed;  and 
no  more  will  be  printed,  for  the  type  has  been  distributed,  and  no  electroplates 
were  made. 

Harvard  and  its  Surroundings.  By  Moses  King. 
100  pp.     70 illustrations.     Cloth,  $1.50;  paper,  $1.00. 

This  work  is  copiously  illustrated  with  heliotypes,  engravings,  andetched- 
plates,  and  is  printed  on  good  paper.  The  subject-matter  is  so  ingeniously  ar- 
ranged, so  accurately  collated,  and  so  complete  in  its  way,  that  the  book  at 
once  becomes  a  useful  reference  book,  guide-book,  and  history  of  Harvard 
University  and  its  historical  vicinity,  which  includes  the  many  noted  places  of 
Old  Cambridge.  There  are  nearly  seventy  illustrations,  about  forty  of  which 
are  heliotype-photographs,  all  numbered  and  arranged  in  the  order  of  the  text 
and  of  the  route  laid  out  on  the  key-plan.  The  revision  of  the  text  has  been 
made  by  the  officers  in  charge  of  the  various  departments,  and  is  trustworthy 
in  every  particular. 


MOSES    KING'S    PUBLICATIONS. 


Canibridg"e  in  1882.   64  small  pages.   Paper.    locents. 

This  is  a  unique  tiny  pamphlet  of  sixty-four  pages.  It  is  small  enough 
for  any  one  to  carry  in  an  ordinary  pocket-book  without  any  inconvenience; 
yet  it  contains  a  vast  amount  of  information,  constantly  useful  to  the  visitor  or 
resident  in  Cambridge.  Its  contents  relate  wholly  to  this  city  and  include 
concise  paragraphs  on  the  city's  history,  statistics,  schools,  colleges,  courts, 
steam  and  horse  railroads,  bridges,  police,  fire  and  water  departments,  omni- 
buses, elevated  railroads,  herdic  phaetons,  cemeteries,  mayors  from  1846  to 
1882,  city  government,  representatives,  libraries,  manufactories,  ward 
boundaries,  distinguished  people,  national  and  savings  banks,  post-offices, 
mails,  fire-alarm  boxes,  school  signals,  public  halls,  chimes,  churches,  parks 
and  squares,  charities,  statues,  drinking  fountains,  newspapers,  distances, 
eclipses,  festivals,  cycles,  seasons,  calendar,  etc. 

"Worcester  Vest-Pocket  Guide.  80  small  pages. 
Paper.     10  cents. 

This  is  a  handy  reference  book  to  all  interesting  features  of  Worcester, 
Mass.  It  is  very  small,  and  printed  on  tissue  paper,  so  that  it  may  readily  be 
carried  in  anyone's  pocket-book.  Its  contents  are  arranged  in  alphabetical 
order,  and  comprise  short  statistical,  historical,  and  descriptive  paragraphs  on 
every  important  place  or  institution  in  Worcester.  It  contains  also  lists  of 
banks,  insurance  companies,  fire-alarm  boxes,  charities,  schools,  churches,  etc. 

Poets' Tributes  to  Garfield.  i6mo.  160  pp.  With 
steel  portrait  and  biography  of  President  Garfield. 
Cloth.     $1.50. 

A  new  edition,  bound  in  cloth,  has  just  been  issued  of  this  beautiful 
memorial  volume,  containing  a  steel  portrait  and  biography,  besides  a  hundred 
and  fifty  poems  by  one  hundred  and  fifty  authors,  including  Henry  W. 
Longfellow,  Will  Carleton,  H.  H.  Boyesen,  Thomas  Bailey  Aldrich, 
A.  Bronson  Alcott,  George  Parsons  Lathrop,  Frances  Hodgson  Burnett, 
John  Savary,  Abraham  Coles,  Louis  Dyer,  Pclcg  McFarlin,  Martin  F. 
Tupper,  David  Swing,  Paul  H.  Hayne,  John  Owen,  Barrington  Lodge, 
Alfred  Nevin,  Charles  J.  Bcattie,  A.  A  Hopkins,  Elizabeth  Yates  Rich- 
mond, Thomas  Nelson  Haskell,  Fannie  Isabelle  Sherrick,  Thomas  Mac- 
kellar,  George  Francis  Dawson,  Oliver  Wendell  Holmes,  Joaquin  Miller, 
Walt  Whitman,  H.  Bernard  Carpenter,  Hezekiah  Ijutterworth,  Louisa 
Parsons  Hopkins,  Julia  Ward  Howe,  John  Reade,  D.  Gilbert  Dexter, 
Charlotte  F.  Bates,  George  A.  Parkhurst,  Thomas  H.  Chandler,  Henry 
C.  Dane,  John  Boyle  O'Reilly,  W.  D.  Kelly,  J.  G.  Holland,  Charles 
"T.  Dazey,  Minot  J.  Savage,  Lilian  Whiting,  Marie  E.  Blake,  Kate  Tannatt 
Woods,  Francis  A.  Nichols,  Caleb  D.  Bradlee,  Anna  Ford  Piper,  Eric  S. 
Robertson,  and  others. 

This  is  one  of  the  finest  memorials  yet  issued  of  our  late  President.  The 
hundred  and  fifty  authors  are  scattered  over  the  United  States,  Canadas,  and 
England,  making  this  somewhat  of  an  international  tribute. 

King's    Pocketbook    of    Providence.      64    pp. 

Cloth,  50  cents;  paper,  25  cents. 

This  is  a  dictionary  of  the  city  of  Providence,  R.  I.,  containing  historical, 
descriptive,  and  statistical  paragraphs  about  everything  worthy  of  note  in  and 
around  the  city.  It  is  an  A  B  C  guide  and  history,  thoroughly  and  accurately 
compiled,  carefully  and  neatly  printed.     It  contains  about  400  paragraphs. 


MOSES    KING'S    PUBLICATIONS. 


King's  Pocketbook  of  Cincinnati.   80  pp.  Cloth, 
35  cents;  paper,  15  cents. 

This  is  a  history  and  guide-book  of  the  city  of  Cincinnati,  O.  It  is  made 
on  the  dictionary  plan;  the  500  paragraphs  being  arranged  in  alphabetical 
order.  No  point  of  any  importance  was  omitted.  It  was  thoroughly  revised 
by  the  most  competent  persons,  and  has  been  highly  approved  and  liberally 
patronized  by  the  citizens  of  Cincinnati. 


Our  French  Visitors.  Bj  William  R.  Thayer. 
Sketches  by  Charles  A.  Coolidge.  32  pp.  Paper. 
25  cents. 

"  This  is  a  humorous  little  brochure,  containing  documents  of  extraordi- 
nary interest  relating  to  the  magnificent  reception  of  our  trench  visitors  in 
Boston  and  their  delightful  tour.  The  racy  compilation  is  made  by  William 
R.  Thayer,  and  the  many  unique  sketches  are  drawn  by  Charles  A.  Coolidge. 
Its  perusal  will  cause  many  an  audible  smile." — Boston  Home  Journal. 

Dean's  Interest  and  Equation  Exponents. 
By  Albert  F.  Dean.  40  pp.  Leather  and  cloth. 
$5.00. 

After  seven  years'  constant  trial,  accountants  in  every  part  of  the  United 
States  are  assured  that  no  work  of  its  kind  is  to  be  compared  with  "  Dean's 
Interest  and  Equation  Exponents,"  for  rapidity  and  simplicity  in  averaging 
accounts,  or  for  finding  the  interest  either  of  items  or  accounts.  By  means  of 
this  work,  the  interest  of  any  sum,  at  any  rate,  for  any  time,  can  be  ascertained 
almost  at  a  glance.  The  average  date,  or  due  date,  of  any 'simple  or  com- 
pound account  can  be  arrived  at  with  fewer  figures  and  with  considerably  less 
work  than  by  any  other  method  or  book  ever  issued.  The  interest-balance  of 
an  account  that  is  generally  computed  by  means  of  an  average  dite  can  be 
found  more  readily  than  the  average  date.  The  time-tables  show  the  number 
of  days  between  any  two  dates,  the  day  of  the  week  and  day  of  the  month  of 
the  maturity  of  any  bill,  whether  falling  due  in  an  ordinary  or  leap  year. 
*'  Dean's  Interest  and  Equation  Exponents  "  are  sold  with  the  privilege  of  re- 
turning if  not  satisfactory.  The  price,  post-paid,  is  $5.00.  Over  5,000  copies 
— seven  editions — have  been  sold,  and  are  now  in  use  in  every  part  of  North 
America.     Many  orders  from  Europe  have  been  filled. 

St.  Louis  Temperance  Monthly.  loo  pp.  Qiiarto. 
Cloth.     $1.00. 

This  is  the  bound  volume  f  the  first  six  numbers  of  the  "  St.  I.ouis 
Temperance  Monthly," — from  November,  1872,  to  April,  1873 — at  that  time 
"  the  handsomest  magazine  in  the  West."  It  is  Moses  King's  first  attempt  in 
the  publishing  business. 

Vest-Pocket   Map   of  Boston.     Leather   covers. 
,  Small.     15  cents. 

This  convenient  little  map  serves  as  a  good  strangers'  directory  for  the 
public  and  noteworthy  places  in  Boston. 


MOSES    KING'S     PUBLICATIONS. 


Poems  of  the  "Weird  and  the  Mystical.  By 
Wm.  Sloane  Kennedy.  48  quarto  pages.  Paper, 
in  box,  $1.00. 

These  pieces  are  regarded  by  authorities  as  thoroughly  original  and  truly 
poetic.  Some  of  them  have  been  printed  in  leading  magazines,  some  have 
been  widely  circulated,  and  some  appear  here  for  the  first  time.  This  work  is 
worth  its  price  as  a  specimen  of  American  typography.  It  comes  from  the 
Franklin  Press  of  Rand,  Avery,  &  Co.,  and,  although  very  plain,  it  will 
bear   comparison  with  much  more  pretentious  specimens  of  printing. 

The  Harvard  Register  for  1880.  254  quarto 
pages.  Illustrated  with  portraits  and  views.  Half 
morocco.     $3.15. 

The  thirteen  issues  during  the  year  1880  have  been  bound  with  title-page 
and  index.  The  contents  include,  among  other  matter,  the  President's  report 
for  1880,  the  speeches  in  full  of  the  New  York  Harvard  Club  dinner,  the  com- 
plete exercises  of  Class  Day  in  i88o,  the  speeches  in  full  of  the  Harvard  Com- 
mencement dinner,  biographical  sketches,  with  portraits,  of  the  Rev.  Dr.  A. 
P.  Peabody,  Professor  P>enjamin  Pelrce,  Frederick  H.  Hedge,  Louis  Agassiz, 
Ex-Librarian  John  Langdon  Sibley,  Librarian  Justin  Winsor,  Prest.  Thomas 
Chase,  Jones  Very,  Alexander  Agassiz,  and  Jonathan  Brown  Bright;  illus- 
trated descriptions  of  Sever  Hall,  Hemenway  Gymnasium,  Phillips  Exeter 
Academy,  Cambridge  High  School,  Haverford  College,  Boston  Public  Latin 
School,  Roxbury  Latin  School,  many  obituary  sketches,  educational  essays, 
university  news,  ete. 


The  Harvard  Register  for  1881.     440  PP*     Por- 
traits and  views.     Half  morocco.     $3.00. 

This  bound  volume  comprises  the  seven  issues  in  the  year  1881,  including 
the  quadruple  "  final  issue."  Its  contents  are  varied,  and  include  biographi- 
cal sketches,  with  portraits,  of  Henry  W.  Longfellow,  Henry  W.  Bellows, 
Edwnrd  E.  Hale,  Robert  T.  Lincoln,  Francis  Bowen,  John  O.  Sargent,  Charles 
Chauncy,  Oliver  Wendell  Holmes,  and  Ralph  Waldo  Emerson,  illustrated 
sketches  of  the  Newton  High  School,  Phillips  Andover  Academy,  Mount 
Auburn  Cemetery',  Hollis  Hall,  Stoughton  Hall,  Harvard  Divinity  School,  and 
other  buildmgs  and  institutions.  The  biographical  paragraphs  are  numerous, 
and  were  prepared  with  much  cost  and  labor.  The  university  new:s  is  also 
full  of  interesting  matter  of  permanent  reference  value. 

King's   Dictionary   of  Boston.    Cloth,  75  cents; 

paper,  50  cents. 

This  is  the  most  exhaustive  account  of  Boston  of  the  present  day.  Up- 
wards of  200  solidly  packed  pages  of  small  type,  describing  in  A  B  C  order 
everythinc:  of  any  importance  in  or  around  the  city,  and  giving  quasi-diction- 
ary  definitions  of  words  and  phrases  peculiar  alone  to  Boston.  This  work  has 
been  in  preparation  for  m  re  than  two  years,  and  when  it  appears  in  the  sum- 
mer of  1882.  it  will  be  the  most  thorough  book  of  its  class  ever  made.  It  is 
a  compilation  s-mil  ir  to  Dicken';*  DiLtionary  of  London,  King's  I'ocketbook 
of  Cincinnati,  Applelon's  Dictionary  of  New  York.  etc.  It  is  chiefly  the 
work  of  Edwin  M.  Bacon,  Editor  of  the   "  Boston  Daily  Advertiser." 


MOSES     KING'S    PUBLICATIONS. 


Index  to  North  American  Review,  1815-1880. 
By  William  Gushing.  170  pp.,  including  supple- 
ment.    Cloth.     $3.50. 

With  this  Index  the  "North  American  Review"  for  65  years  becomes 
in  itself  a  valuable  library  for  reference  and  for  entertainment.  Its  stores  of 
literary  wealth  are  readily  referred  to  through  the  index,  either  to  authors  or 
to  subjects.  Dr.  O.  W.  Holmes  speaks  of  Mr.  Cushing's  work  as  follows: 
"I  might  almost  dare  to  parody  Mr.  Webster's  words  in  speaking  of 
Hamilton,  to  describe  what  Mr.  Gushing  did  for  the  solemn  rows  of 
back  volumes  of  our  honored  old  Review,  which  had  been  lying  fossilizing 
on  our  shelves:  "  he  Louched  the  dead  corpse  of  the  North  American  and 
it  sprang  to  its  feet.  A  library  of  the  best  thought  of  the  best  American 
scholars  during  the  greater  portion  of  the  century  was  brought  to  light  by  the 
work  of  the  index  maker,  as  truly  as  were  the  Assyrian  tablets  by  the  labors 
of  Layard." 

Handbook  of  Mount  Auburn  Cemetery.  32mo. 
100  pp.     31  illustrations.     Paper.     30  cents. 

This  is  a  little  guide  to  Cambridge  in  general  and  to  Mount  Auburn 
Cemetery  in  particular.  It  contains  a  history  and  description  of  the  Ceme- 
tery, and  m^ny  views  of  its  monuments,  and  biographical  notes  of  the  noted 
people  buried  there.     It  is  the  only  guide-book  of  its  kind  now  published. 

Cambridge  High  School  History  and  Cata- 
logue. By  William  F.  Bradbury,  principal,  and 
Elbridge  Smith,  former  principal.  60  pp.  3  illus- 
trations.    Cloth,  $1.00;  paper,  50  cents. 

This  work  contains  the  full  names  and  present  addresses  of  all  the 
School's  past  and  present  teachers  and  graduates,  besides  its  historv  from  the 
beginning  to  this  time.  The  lists  of  graduates  are  arranged,  first  by  classes, 
and  afterwards  in  alphabetical  order.  The  occupation  is  mentioned,  and 
whenever  a  gradu.ite  simply  entered  or  graduated  at  any  advanced  education- 
al institution,  the  fact  is  indicated.  Whenever  a  female  graduate  has  been 
married,  the  name  and  address  of  the  husband  are  given.  Comparative 
courses  of  study  at  different  periods  are  inserted,  and  the  list  of  text  books 
now  used  is  included. 

King's  Petite  Guide  to  Boston.  128  small  pages. 
Paper.     15  cents. 

This  little  guide  is  on  tissue  paper,  designed  to  be  easily  carried  in 
pocketbook  or  vest  pocket.  It  contains  alphabetically  arranged  descriptions 
of  all  the  important  places  in  and  around  Boston.  Its  mitter  is  such  as  is 
usually  found  in  guide  books:  its  chief  features  being  its  compactness,  terse- 
ness, fullness  and  convenience. 

Back-Bay  District,  and  the  Vendome.     32  pp. 

30  illustrations.     Paper.     25  cents. 

A  neat  pamphlet,  describing  and  illustrating  the  many  noteworthy  features 
of  Boston's  famous  Back-Bay  district,  including  the  palatial  Hotel  Vendome. 


g  MOSES    KING'S    PUBLICATIONS. 

MEDAL    AND    DIPLOMA 


AWARDED  BY  THE 


MASSACHUSETTS    CHARITABLE  MECHANIC  ASSOCIATION, 

TO 

Moses  King,  of  Cambridge, 

FOR 

BOOKS,  INTEREST  TABLES,  ETC. 


The  Report  of  the  Judges  was  as  follows : 

"Ingenuity,  originality/  and  enterprise  are  apparent 
in  every  item  of  this  exhibit.  It  combines  the  results 
of  the  tact  of  the  skillful  editor  with  the  discrimina- 
tion and  good  taste  of  the  successful  publisher.  It 
is  entitled  to  honorable  mention,  as  being  in  some 
respects  one  of  the  most  praiseworthy  exhibits  in 
this  department  of  the  Exhibition."     Bronze  Medal. 


j8®="A  specialty  made  of  supplying  residents  in  any  part  of  the  world  with 
new  and  second-hand  books,  particularly  those  in  fine  bindings,  and  those  of 
great  value  by  reason  of  age  or  rarety.  Any  book  written  by  a  Harvard 
graduate,  or  used  in  Harvard  University,  can  generally  be  obtained  here,  if 
obtainable  anywhere. 


Date  Due 

^ 

99%n  ifi  I  T^ 

R 

Itin  ^i  iTiilMi 

? 

f^t^^.^t^n 

%% 

c^^ 

9t>-n 

"fj^^l.^ 

^if^rd^^- 

-^it^ 

_mmBA 

'iAf^ 

m 

PRINTED 

IN  U.  8.  A. 

BS2385.S19 

The  English  revisers'  Greek  text  shown 

I  lliriJMlllMJf,?'.°^'"'  5^'"'"3^y-Speer  Library 


